Arch Schools: Deans Roundtable

I just came from a rigorously invigorating architectural discussion at the Arch Schools 2010 Dean's Roundtable.

RPI preached a certain kind of architecture. It claimed to be functional and forward thinking, and while it may have been the latter, I found that it was often not the former. Sure, it's great that they pushed us to be such innovative designers, but it felt often that we were more designers and less architects; that is to say that often the work seemed to be more aesthetic than functional, even though it claimed otherwise.

I'm not trying to say that all of the work that comes out of RPI is crap. It's not. But all work lacks a certain level of reality that I think is critical. In one of my studios, someone once designed a flood-zone housing prototype that, functionality aside, looked like a parametrically designed sneaker. It was sculpturally interesting, and lent itself to beautiful renderings, but when someone asked the student what it would be constructed of, he said something along the lines of “I don't know. Maybe fiberglass or something?” This conversation has stuck with me for years, and I still attribute it as one of the main reasons I'm currently pursuing historic preservation and materials-based conservation.

Not every student at RPI designs like this. It is common, but certainly not the majority. However, no matter how practical or realistic we may have thought we were being, I'm not convinced that that was true. Our education taught us to design like starchitects: with limitless budgets, on whatever site we wanted, at whatever cost. (Yes there were exceptions, but I'm speaking more to the overall view I had after graduating and the parts of the education that have stood out and stuck with me.) So much of design takes place on a community level that was not always stressed to us.

That all being said, many of the deans tonight at the discussion displayed views that were right in line with my feelings. A few of the notes that I jotted down during the roundtable:
• There is controversy in what we do: the layman doesn't like modern architecture.
• If architects get involved with the “real world”, the art [of architecture] will be compromised.
• It is a mistake to assume that the general population is interested in architecture, in our language and discourse.
• It is arrogant to say that we decide what cities will be, and it distances ourselves from the public.
• Our students need to be a jack-of-all-trades and master of none.

One dean also said that we “do whatever's possible for no reason other than because it's possible” and challenged us to think whether this is a good thing or not and if it's justified.

By the end of the discussion, many of the deans' opinions differed and the conversation was getting so intriguing I wished it could have gone on for hours. Yet it didn't. And so I was left questioning what RPI taught me, what I took from that education, where I am placing myself now, where I see myself in the future, and what my own personal beliefs are as to the future of the profession and education of architects. I really wish more of my peers could have been there, but I asked the man sitting next to me who was recording an audio version to send me the file, and I'd love to pass it on to anyone who'd like to hear it. I'm itching to talk more with someone about all of this.

another post soon about more city-life things like crepes and rainboots and the subway.