A Lot To Think About

That was a compelling movie and your previous post poses some very complex questions. Since I hate with a capital 'H' politics and economics are outside my scope of understanding I can't intelligently comment on either. However, in May 2010 I will have 10 years experience in architecture and have seen everything from the economic fever to our current condition of begging for any scrap of a project just to stay afloat. As far as the future, no one knows what it will be. To point out the obvious the future will be what we make it, and by the time we are aware of it, it will be the present and quickly slipping into the past.

I would argue (for the sake of argument) that the average 50 person firm has more power than you might think. While yes it is true a lack of financial clout does limit large scale change and power. It also allows for greater mobility to change course and think outside the box. For an industry like the automobile industry to change course it takes years of re-working, billions in systems redesign and countless arguments with lobbyists, politicians and investors before anything is done, and in the end what changes? Nothing, maybe an extra 3 gallons per mile in efficiency or ipod docks as a standard feature. In my lifetime nothing of great significance has changed, even the highly celebrated hybrid cars only get 45 miles to the gallon. Not much of a feat if you consider the technology for zero emissions cars has been around since the 1950's. Architecture on the other hand not being tangled up so literally in politics has allowed it to be one of the industries with the wiggle room to apply (albeit handed down) technologies in a way that make off the grid homes and passive technologies a reality today. If we were the auto industry solar panels would still be a little known and un-produced addition to houses because they are not good for the bottom line...long term returns on continued energy reliance. Yes we have little ability to make legislated, wide sweeping change on a national or global level, but look how quickly "sustainability" took off. While sustainability is a pathetic attempt at the end goal, it is a testament to the strength of the architectural network of creative people without corporate agendas spreading and applying new ideas liberally to projects which then spawn wider and wider applications, until that idea becomes common place among professionals in the industry. Maybe it is my personality that leads me to take this perspective, but I feel this depression is the best thing that could happen to young architects. It has provided for us a clean slate with which to reinvent the way we do our jobs and influence the built environment. If we can shed the worthless baggage of old architectural ideals and invent new systems of practice and design, we will have a greater impact on the world than we are currently able to imagine. We are only limited to the extent that we limit ourselves.

As to our ability to create our own technologies, why are we not adding prototype engineers, computer programmers and ecologists into firm hierarchies. Imagine a firm where the power structure is such: (1) Architect, (1) Landscape Architect, (1) Business Administrator, (1) Conceptual engineer/structural engineer, (1) Programmer, and (1) ecologist. Now hire an educated team of 10 or fewer to support each principal and allow each group to learn from the other and produce new technologies or systems which strengthen the firms overall efficiency while creating new streams of income. Software development/sales, Material patents, Groundbreaking systems of management, etc. If we would stop trying to create firms exclusively based on architectural production i.e. design/build we would probably see faster growth and greater financial maneuverability in down economies.

Scott G.