PPB is an amazing forum for design discussion and it certainly does understand the universal language of design. There are numerous examples here on the forum, ranging from conceptual to conceived projects that demonstrate a passion for design and also an understanding of the formal aspects which define the architectural profession.

Education and experience derive the formative characteristics of an Architect/Designer. From the early stages of academics begins a curiosity to understand form, space and order. And through a dedicated process of education, the student begins to relate these parts into an understanding leading to what we ultimately consider architectural expression. Learning never stops, and through work experience, trial and error, further study, apprenticeship and commitment an "Architect" emerges.

On PPB we "push and pull" for design to reach a certain level of sophistication, clarity and situation in today's world. Granted not all projects require magazine status, there is still a level of expectation that any design project at a minimum will be based on a parti, concept, idea, thought, inspiration or text. This starting point grounds the author to an understanding of a process leading to a design.

------- (insert guitar solo)

In today's world we see many built structures that fail to contribute to design and a better way of living. Many of these structures are conceived and built by non-Architects and are very common throughout the world. It is also necessary to mention that not all built structures need to meet a certain design criteria, although the majority should.

Architects as design professionals are committed to elevating design awareness and provocation. Similar to other professionals such as doctors and lawyers, a formal education, minimal level of experience and required examination are prerequisites that define eligibility to practice.

Would you consider practicing medicine without the education, defending a criminal in a courtroom without the education? Commonly this does not occur within these other professions, however it seems to be abundant in the architectural world.

Question: Should anyone without an architectural education/experience be allowed to service the public by preforming design services?

Inarch, I agree with a part of what your saying. The guitar solo part... :rock on:

I find the rest to be quite an administrative approach towards the profession. I see your point, but have some serious problem with the presupposition that architects with a degree are good architects and the rest are not. Ando was a boxer, and, as far as I know, Corbusier never got his degree either. Some people are really talented but didn't do the studies (or didn't finish them). Most of the people that finish their architecture studies will never do anything really exciting in their career, but will rather choose the safe way of building traditional stuff.

A lot of the built structures that you refer to were conceived by engineers, but a lot of those were also thaught out by architects. Bad architects.
There are bad doctors as well, though they probably still have a certain level of expertise. Most architects will also have a certain level of expertise, but lack the imagination to make really good architecture. Other people will lack the technical skills and expertise, but will make really brilliant stuff. But they won't do brilliant surgery. So the architect as doctor or lawyer metaphor is not working I think. The engineer as doctor or lawyer, ok. But most of the technical stuff involved in building everyday building is not really quantum physics, is it?
I would rather compare architects to artists. Imagine that someone would propose that only artist with a degree can exhibit in museums... Not the best comparison either, but comes closer than doctor or lawyer for me.

So I think we should open the profession more to creative individuals with a different background. Let artists also enter competitions. Give people that don't fit in the school system more chances. With all the building regulations these days, it has to be technically sound to be built anyway. So if someone without a degree can get his design through all the building regulations succesfully, I think there should be the opportunity to get the design built as well.

I decided to go back to architecture school for two reasons. First of all I still have a lot to learn. Second, I just want the degree for practical reasons. I don't have the talent nor the discipline to learn it all by myself, step outside of the system and get the opportunity to build great stuff. Some people - also here on PPB - do just that and they should be stimulated rather than given a hard time.

The discussion is of course very complex and I can see the problems a more liberal approach would lead to, but still I think we should think about broadening the input rather than excluding people from building.

In actual experience here in my city I have not seen much difference between the two. Most of the commercial structures have been designed by architects, some are good most are average and some are bad. That's pretty much the same thing you find in residential where most houses are designed by unlicensed people.

Also I have been in several of the homes in my area designed by architects and I have not found a big difference within similar costs per foot. Some architects design for energy efficiency but most do not.

Of coarse that is a tricky question. What constitutes architectural experience?
That certainly does not exclude the self educated.

What constitutes architectural experience?
That certainly does not exclude the self educated.

Chris, that's a good question. As I have followed your SFR in Texas (http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6059) thread, it's obvious you have plenty of experience with design. However, when asked to describe your concept it became a more difficult task. The concepts regarding form, space and order are more understood through academics, allowing for experimentation with abstract concepts and not real projects. This process evolves into a thinking process that is rather unique to Architects.

Yet again, not everyone that went through architecture school can or chooses to think in these terms. So the question of necessary education must be considered.

Decades ago here in the US, Architects were issued registration stamps on the basis of lifetime experience only, several had no formal education, and few had the opportunity to work for well known and established Architects.

The question of Should anyone without an architectural education/experience be allowed to service the public by preforming design services is rather multi-level, but to answer your question, I would have to agree that education does not always lead to credentials...

The question of Should anyone without an architectural education/experience be allowed to service the public by preforming design services is rather multi-level, but to answer your question, I would have to agree that education does not always lead to credentials...

Beyond "what is experience" is how to you legislate "experience". I know certain residential designers with over 30 years experience, without a seal, that can design amazing homes...but they can't have their structures built in the nearby county without an Architect's seal. On the other hand, an architect that has designed perhaps three houses, all in college, and has had his license for 1 week could design plans and get those plans built in that city.

Who would you have design your house?

Point being, it's not experience that matters, it's quality of experience. A doctor isn't just a doctor, they have specialties. A lawyer isn't just a lawyer, they have specialties too. Why can architects design whatever they want even if they don't have experience? It can be argued it's because of public safety which is true, but that doesn't guarantee any excellence in design... it just provides a person to hold the liability should that need to be taken into account. I'm not saying that architect's shouldn't have the right to design certain things, I'm just saying that "experience" needs a better unit of measure.

Chris, that's a good question. As I have followed your SFR in Texas (http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6059) thread, it's obvious you have plenty of experience with design. However, when asked to describe your concept it became a more difficult task. The concepts regarding form, space and order are more understood through academics, allowing for experimentation with abstract concepts and not real projects. This process evolves into a thinking process that is rather unique to Architects.

The question is: In actual outcome (of real projects) does this unique thinking process make a difference? And is that thinking process really unique to institutionally trained people or people who have apprenticed under an architect?

I think we would be better off looking at individual ability instead of the method in which a person is trained.

Question: Should anyone without an architectural education/experience be allowed to service the public by preforming design services?






Tadao Ando.

does education make you a good designer? hell no!
architecture is a functional art form, education can teach you about the function and construction techniques, but the art side of things comes naturally and cant really be taught.
to pass a university course you only need to impress your lecturers and tutors, be able to write long essays(what architect in the real world writes long essays???) and memorize buildings for exams.
none of these things really help you to design buildings that would be seen as beautiful.

If anything i think that people without degrees should be able to get into the profession more easily. people shouldnt be hired on whether or not they have a degree, it should be purely folio based in my opinion

I am one of those uneducated designers (not through lack of trying). I left school and got some industry experience (as a quantity surveyor) before heading to Arch. School. Missing final year of school and 2 years away from academic environment made it difficult to master University Maths and Physics, still passed though, thus precluding me from entry to the Professional Years. Have spent the past 14 years working for myself as firstly a draughtsman and now as an Architectural Designer (as I believe that the hard graft to teach myself qualifies me to be called a designer now) as this is all I have ever dreamed of doing. I have employed a handful of qualified designers in recent years and find that the knowledge they possess and their abilities are not a touch on my self taught skills, some don't even know how to present a basic set of drawings for construction. (I have even been tempted on occasion to write and ask for some of these kids money back, as they have been severely short changed) Often, over the past 14 years I have regretted that I did not achieve my educational goal of being a qualified Architect, but now upon reflection, think that I have been lucky as self taught knowledge, gained through years of hard slog, and numerous mistakes has an ability to stick better than book knowledge.

So from my perspective I believe that knowledge and experience count, not the degree or qualification. It is thoroughly satisfying to have to, on occasion, sort out an architects design and actually make it work the way they intended (but couldn't show....)

Tadao Ando.

OK, but don't forget that there are millions of shitty architects (registered and not very registered) and only one Ando genious......

He is not an example, he is the exception....

Inarch, I agree with a part of what your saying. The guitar solo part... :rock on:

I find the rest to be quite an administrative approach towards the profession. I see your point, but have some serious problem with the presupposition that architects with a degree are good architects and the rest are not. Ando was a boxer, and, as far as I know, Corbusier never got his degree either. Some people are really talented but didn't do the studies (or didn't finish them). Most of the people that finish their architecture studies will never do anything really exciting in their career, but will rather choose the safe way of building traditional stuff.


I completely agree with you Pitrac ! For being a good architect, you need to understand some basic principles, but those are not relativistic quantum mechanics, the most important thig you need is just .. TALENT....

Not that I do not respect the profession, on the contrary, some architects are really genial and deserve deep respect....

I would prefer it, if you could become an architect by just passing an exam to demonstrate a basic knowledge about structures etc, and potentially follow some trainee praxtice. However unfortunately, here in Belgium, to become an architect, you have to pass the full academic curruculum...

It sounds like people are assuming that an education has to be completely qualifying or else is completely useless.

I don't think that merely having a degree should allow you to become a licensed architect -- I knew plenty of classmates that couldn't design crap that still graduated. Of course there are people without education who are excellent designers. Practical work is priceless in learning how the job is actually done. Also, as people have already said, innate talent is irreplaceable.

That said, an architectural education not only exposes you to different ideas, theories and methodologies, but is an expression of you pursuing your interest. I see it more as a symptom of loving architecture rather than the cause.

The architecture education is like an instruction manual on an expensive tech.-toy. If you're really interested in this thing, you'll probably flip through it to see what it says. It doesn't allow you to use the thing better but might show you a couple of things wouldn't otherwise figure out [as quickly, at least].

That's probably a crappy analogy, but the point is, while it's no replacement for real-life experience, an architectural education can be very beneficial and offer insights into the profession you wouldn't otherwise get. The studio environment alone has an [immature, usually] excitement about design and architecture theory in general that I haven't found since.

Would you consider practicing medicine without the education,
defending a criminal in a courtroom without the education?
Commonly this does not occur within these other professions, however it seems to be
abundant in the architectural world.

Question: Should anyone without an architectural education/experience be allowed to service the public by preforming design services?

Would you buy a painting because the painter has a degree in Master of FineArt?
Lawyers and doctors have to be technicians themselves, but (even the best) architects
can have (must have) technical support from all quarters.

I believe an important ability of architects is the ability to make an integrated whole.
A 200 storey skyscraper project might have 2000 specialists of all kinds involved,
but none of them are responsible for "an integrated whole", but the architect is.

Maki (http://www.maki-and-associates.co.jp/) said "an architect has to make a singular statement".
I see singular statements in Siza's and Murcutt's sketches, or Kahn's most preliminary models.
"A singular statement" is, to me, a blueprint of "an integrated whole".
This is not some knowledge you can get from textbooks.
Education might help, but it is surely not a warranty to be a good architect.

I would buy a painting if I see some beauty (integrity) in it.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere and a good time to sum up and restate the idea behind the question.

It's very apparent that education alone is not the answer to becoming a "good" Architect. Just like other professions there is room in Architecture for many different talents excluding design. And all these talents are needed to make some projects incredible.

Also yes, there are "good" (A)rchitects and bad "(a)rchitects, and this can be the topic of another discussion entirely. So let's not attempt to define what's makes an Architect good or bad at this point (maybe later).

Also, when referring to "built structures" I did not mean to relate the projects to engineers. That can also be a different topic of discussion. Engineers are also designers and can produce incredible work, however, just like our profession there are also bad examples.

The idea behind my initial question is that without the qualifications there are "too many cooks" trying to design commercial and residential buildings out there. These efforts typically produce less design and aesthetics and sometimes place a negative connotation on the term Architecture and Architect. It is common to find builders with 20 years of experience that produce acceptable home designs, but sometimes don't meet local code requirements or are not experienced with the design process to offer the client a better solution. This in my opinion results in cookie-cutter buildings that are repeated over and over in today's environment.

Outside the question of "good or bad", doctors and lawyers have placed themselves on a pedestal and not allowed the less qualified to practice in their fields. (NOTE: qualifications don't necessarily lead to good practitioners).

Should this also be done to the Architectural profession, allowing only the qualified to design. And would this elevate the status of the Architect as compared with these other professions?

It sounds like people are assuming that an education has to be completely qualifying or else is completely useless.

I don't think that merely having a degree should allow you to become a licensed architect -- I knew plenty of classmates that couldn't design crap that still graduated. Of course there are people without education who are excellent designers. Practical work is priceless in learning how the job is actually done. Also, as people have already said, innate talent is irreplaceable.

That said, an architectural education not only exposes you to different ideas, theories and methodologies, but is an expression of you pursuing your interest. I see it more as a symptom of loving architecture rather than the cause.

The architecture education is like an instruction manual on an expensive tech.-toy. If you're really interested in this thing, you'll probably flip through it to see what it says. It doesn't allow you to use the thing better but might show you a couple of things wouldn't otherwise figure out [as quickly, at least].

That's probably a crappy analogy, but the point is, while it's no replacement for real-life experience, an architectural education can be very beneficial and offer insights into the profession you wouldn't otherwise get. The studio environment alone has an [immature, usually] excitement about design and architecture theory in general that I haven't found since.

I agree with you, dsarchs, I think sudying architecture definitely will give you some added values, and I think it is a very good idea to do it if you want to build your career in this exciting branch. I think an education will make it more easy to become a good architect, however I think that you can also become a good architect without having followed the purely academical stuff...

.

...
Question: Should anyone without an architectural education/experience be allowed to service the public by preforming design services?



I think you need to consider the true function of education as it serves societies.

[Methodically read or re-read--a chapter a day is a nice pace-- Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (online version) (http://www.huxley.net/bnw/one.html).]

I have great concerns about increasing the gatekeepers' powers given the 99.999% track record. Would your governors of design have allowed Bauersfeld's dome (http://www.telacommunications.com/geodome.htm)? Lorenzo's Oil also comes to mind. 99.999% of the formally educated physicians KNEW that ulcers were not caused by H. pylori!

I concur with some of the other responses: soigne talent can be supported and encouraged, but not cultivated, and certaninly not mass produced, at least given today's crude tuition and naive algorithms. As building technology and material sciences advance to sub-micron and nano-scale precision tolerances, the architectural profession may be radically democratized.

"Can rules or tutors educate The semigod whom we await?"





.

Should this also be done to the Architectural profession, allowing only the qualified to design. And would this elevate the status of the Architect as compared with these other professions?

The qualified already design if "qualified" is decided by the free-market. If they were REALLY bad then their buildings wouldn't be built long term.

I once read a book by a professional Chess player that also rated games for magazines, European newspapers, etc.. In the book he stated that a typical chess player would not be able to tell apart those at the highest level of the profession/game. In other words, your typical class "A" or "B" player (a reasonable chess player in the general public) would not be able to tell a Master from a Grandmaster... but a Master would quickly realize the difference between themselves and the next level up Grandmaster. I believe the same applies to Architecture. Yes, you'll have certain individuals that CAN tell the difference, but it's a fine line between levels of greatness or "qualifications".

I once worked for one of the most successful residential designers in America. Among American home designers he likely ranks in the top 20, perhaps top 10 most built. But I promise you've NEVER heard of him... he used to work for a major home Builder and later for a home plans company where his homes were built world wide. His designs were nice, cozy designs that the public really liked... but the architectural design community would have frowned at his work even as his homes were being built many times more often than those of the "elite". So who was right, the Architectural community or the public? I still argue they are BOTH correct. He WASN'T as good as some of the leading designers in the nation, but the public felt a closeness to his work and went out of their way to build his designs, even if they we're nothing special when put against the elite (it was just MUCH better than most of the "average" stuff out there..at least in the eyes of the public, not the general design community).

This leads us back to chess where you have Grandmasters, Masters, and the general public. Everyone can spot a bad player... we have an idea when we see a good player... we recognize an above average player...but then it gets to blur when we play a really GREAT player as to a "Grandmaster" they are often no better than you and me. How do you rate the qualified? I don't think you or anyone can very easily or fairly. Making this class even "more elite" would make them seem even more pompous in the eyes of the "general public" and I don't see it in any way helping the public which doesn't know a Grandmaster from an Expert (a player in most cases just good enough to compete in a typical tournament) anyway.

This is a tough question and I don't have the answers to this, but I'd like to share some observations about what has been laid out.

- you can't rely on the discretion of the general public to identify good design. The nations leading home plan designer may be churning out crap, but that does not mean that builders and buyers won't lap it up. The question posed really is, ought we be allowing them to do this, meaning churn out crap for the public to lap up?

- The difference here is between good architecture (whether it be high art or high utility) and a profitable product. The product can be crap, and it can still make the producer plenty of money, and make a lot of customer's happy. Can you really stop that from happening? The architecture can be a lousy product too. And there are some good products out there as well but I assure you its none of the crap that sells hot out of a house plan book. You would find it more in the realm of something like an Airstream trailer.

- the comparison to a Doctor is tempting, but it does not always jive. People have a different regard about healthcare, even though construction does have an obvious life safety component. (I'm quite sure that architects will be boxed out of the life safety content before we conquer the world with good design!) But even so consider it - Doctors and drugs are quite strictly regulated, and barriers to entry are tremendous. Yet herbal remedies/supplements and all manner of quacky healers are abound in the US. Is that any different than architects vs lame-o designers? We've already staked our claim just like doctors. If you are really sick - you end up with a doctor at a hospital. If you want to build a real building you have no choice but to hire an architect. What is falling through the cracks in this country is houses. But houses are like the headaches and head colds of the medical world. People will first try a wacky remedy before spending on a doctor for a headache...

I think bad architecture (as each person defines it...my definition is unique to me and yours to you) is something that we have to live with...bottom line.

As long as we all have the right to buy a piece of land and use our hard earned money to put one piece of wood, metal, etc. together with more pieces, concrete, etc, then I can design whatever the hell I damn please, whether you like it or not; whether you think it's good or not. Other than code issues, and your local provisions, it's your money, your land, do as you will.

Having said that, of course all I would prefer is good, even great architecture. Who doesn't want to live in a city that is just "delicious" to look at and walk around. But that is a pipe dream.

There is no way a government can regulate if you have "enough" experience. There is no way a government can regulate that you have "talent."

Architecture is, of all the other professions mentioned, closest to art (ignoring the engineering / structural for a second). Trying to regulate or coax only "good" architects is as impossible as it is to only allow "good" artists to practice.

If we're talking about "building", creating a structure that is safe and protects you from the elements, by all means, this should be regulated for benefit of all who use the space; and indeed it is.

If we're talking about "architecture", designing a space that inspires, enlightens, whatever (pick your definition), then you have to just suck it up and take the good with the bad.

Instead of dwelling on how much bad stuff their is, just concentrate on taking your own personal initiative to not add to it.

I think you must tread very gently when you put forth such regulations. The next step after regulating who may be regulating what.
If Prince Phillip, heir to the British throne were a regulator, (considering his outspoken views on "Modern" architecture) architects would all be emulating Sir Christopher Wren.
The criteria for what is and isn't Good architecture would probably draw the same kind of passionate and heated discussion that you can find on PPB in the thread on Architectural renderings and animation In the Architectural +Design References Forum. And that judgement should not be left to any one group of individuals, who may have in one form or other a protectionist bent.
I know where I live there are already regulations in place that limit what anyone who is not a registered architect can legally build. I am pretty sure that if you look at the juridstiction you are in you will find the same.

If Prince Phillip, heir to the British throne were a regulator, (considering his outspoken views on "Modern" architecture) architects would all be emulating Sir Christopher Wren.


I think you meant prince Charles mate.

In the UK we have something called the ARB(architects registration board), which enforces the law against anyone without the proper training using the title of "architect". I think that there should be more public awareness of the profession and the training involved so that people know the difference between a fully qualified professional architect (who is properly educated and bound by laws of professional conduct) and a layman who calls himself an architectural designer. Its kind of worrying that you have people without proper training calling themselves things like architectural design consultant because the general public may not be aware of the difference. I think all we can do is make sure as far as possible that people know that only people who have the correct qualifications and education are architects. if only for their protection, in the uk if an architect screws up then he's in a massive s**t storm of liability, but if he's not a real architect then the clients have nobody to complain to.

superjim Re: Phillip/Charles of course you are correct. (with apologies to Phillip)
In a previous discussion of this nature a friend once made the point that he would agree with only Architects being allowed to practise in their field if the same degree of scrutiny and laws were applied when someone wanted to have children and start a family, which at the moment at least here is completely unregulated and has deeper(he felt) social consequences

Designers will do the work for much less than an architect typically, and builders (this is getting to be less common because of what local municipalities are requiring for a permit) will do it for free, because they make their money in the construction phase. How do you convince someone that you are worth 8-10% of the construction budget when others will do it for much less?

I think that the fact that builders have been virtually giving away the service had made it seem silly to pay much for design services. The architects failing is that we have not shown the public that an architect designed home is better then a designer home. (and in my experience, many are not) Realtors have managed to convince people that 6% is a reasonable fee for selling their homes, we have not managed to do the same.

I think this is a good argument for architects to get into construction, especially residential architects. I think building gives us the opportunity to make our money back in the construction of the project vs. just the design which most people are unwilling to pay for. (see the Architect as Developer thread)

I guess I am saying. "If you can't beat them, join them".