Tag: education

Architecture School

1st year studio at Tulane School of Architecture, circa 2001

So I just got done watching the first episode of Sundance Channel’s Architecture School.

I have to say, for the first reality TV depiction of the world of architecture education, and especially the Tulane variety, it is starting out as a decent representation. They managed to capture the ever condescending tone that most professors use towards their students as well as the tensions between rich and poor, black and white, and Tulane and the city; issues that have always inhabited New Orleans even before Katrina. I have to say, one of the things that is severely missing is the sense of height and lack of air conditioning in the architecture building – Richardson Memorial Hall, and the oppressive humidity that I am sure is plaguing these students in the field. With it being the first 2 weeks of the semester, it has to either be August or January and it doesn’t really look like they are dressed for January in New Orleans. C’mon Sundance Channel, where are my sweaty dehydrated daiquiri sipping architecture students?

Let me also add, that it is totally surreal to watch not only people that you know but buildings that used to be central to your life on TV. It has sparked in me a real desire to move back to New Orleans, maybe one of these days my life will take me back there.

Article: Theorizing the American City

A detailed analysis of a site - the most common starting point for architecture.

a456 has a very interesting post about the lack of theory and prevalence of study in contemporary architecture (Click here for the article). This speaks to me because I feel that critical theory has left the world of architectural design and moved into its own sphere of academic theory.

How often in school did we start a project by analyzing the site, environment, and urban anthropological records as compared to developing a theory of place and setting idealized goals and a grammar of forms? The first was much more common than the latter. In fact we were always taught to analyze and then use the analysis to develop forms. The only time theory made its way into our curriculum was in a lecture setting where we “learned” about contemporary architectural thought through reading lectures and treatises, not design.

This translates to the practice of architecture as well. Projects are designed to fulfill a function, and not argue a thesis. While flights of academic fancy are not feasible in a client driven situation, I am hard pressed to think of many non-avant garde/magazine architecture firms that strategize an idea of a building instead of a program schema.

I think that architecture theory is still alive, but it is retroactive. Instead of being a part of the design process it is post rationalization for subconscious decisions that do not fit with a designer’s analysis. In addition, it is alive and well amongst architectural criticism and specifically blogging. This, to me, is because theory can be read and discovered in any building (even those designed without a conscious intent), but analysis usually requires access to the architects notes or some sort of key to “read” it out of the building.