Top Ten Reasons to be an Architect
Top Ten Reasons NOT to be an Architect
Two great reads at http://www.lifeofanarchitect.com
I specially like this reason: “Bonus. We can wear ridiculous eye wear and get away with it.” :)
Reading both sides gave me very opposite feelings, reading the top reasons NOT to be an Architect is SO despressing. The reasonts to BE an architect are quite good and accurate, either way, this carreer demands DEDICATION and JOY, only that way you can handle the bad things of it.
When Michael Manser, 80, began his career, architects still sat at drawing boards wearing smocks
Things had moved on quite a bit since 1970, but nonetheless these past four decades have seen huge changes in the way architecture is practised — from the massive impact of computers and the internet to the huge changes in procurement and the role of the architect. But what has this meant for the individual across the generations? To find out, we spoke to three architects aged 40, 60, and 80 and to one student still a few years off emerging into the profession. All are preoccupied with the recession but, as Manser points out, boom and bust was ever thus — he’s seen four in his time. What’s different now is that students such as Harri Williams-Jones not only have uncertain job prospects but are weighed down with years of debt — completely unthinkable in 1970. John Lyall has seen the architect’s role challenged for the worse but public opinion change for the better. Meanwhile Polly Damen is an example of the huge influx of women into the profession in BD’s time and of the growing scope for more flexible working arrangements. Each of them has been photographed with an object that is important or inspirational to them as designers.
*filigree assemblage by Sean Canty
I had said that the parametric revolution would position architects as catalysts for design which evolves.
The question reminds me of something Yona Friedman wrote about decades ago in Towards a Scientific Architecture. There, he suggested that architects could abandon the creation of discrete building forms, in favor of producing portfolios of building components. His theory was that architects could become (again?) trusted advisers, guiding clients through the implications, opportunities, and dangers of selecting particular building components or systems.
While this form of professional practice is dramatically different than our current one, it does align closely with the parametric design process. In both scenarios, the architect has a wealth of components to choose from, but he/she is also becomes responsible for the harmonious and discerned composition of the elements.
While the idea of using building components is not new (think of Le Corbusier’s Maison Dom-ino, or the high-tech building style of the eighties), the idea of allowing clients to have a direct influence over their composition is new.
To read the full article, go to: y_architect
*drawing by Yona Friedman
