The single most important thing I learned at Architecture School
Is that Architecture should be taught backwards
In a past life I was an Architecture university professor. The typical challenge was teaching urban theory to kids who thought the only reason why they were not the next Frank Gehry was because of my unwillingness to recognize their genius.
I tried to make them think about the Whys of the buildings they designed and it was an utter failure, albeit a predictable one.
Besides the usual, boring “when was this building made?” I tried to bring up conversation about the economic, political and social context of their construction, who paid for them and what influenced the design. This being urban theory, I thought it was appropriate.
It was absolutely appalling to learn that students see buildings as disassociated objects from the culture that made them and there was little I could do to change that.
Historical context and landmarks like wars, coups, economic collapses and other drivers of architectural thinking meant absolutely nothing to them.
I kept telling myself that I got the fifth- year students who had been conditioned and taught that their creativity had value only because it was unique. A building’s value, to my Architecture professor colleagues, came from the fact that the designer was licensed and anything that designer produced would be acceptable.
The blatant neglect to talk about what makes a cultural object (i.e. buildings) valuable and the placement of such value on credentials alone created little monsters for whom context was something that had to adapt to their genius.
Not all architecture students are geniuses, sadly, which poses a problem.
So in the spare time between giving out passing grades out of hopelessness, I created a curriculum that reversed the order in which Architecture is taught.
Since the time I was in Architecture school, and continuing through the time when I was teaching, the course flow starts with basic fundamentals and has a gradual increase in design difficulty that goes from a simple house to larger public buildings.
The minds of 20 year olds might not be equipped to grasp all the depth, complexity and interactions that the design of cities and public spaces requires. Architectural and urban design is undertaken as a geometric problem and nothing could be farther from reality.
A house may be solved like a series of geometric problems but public spaces, neighborhoods and cities most certainly do not. Even so, a generic house may be solved that way but resolving a good house requires understanding the mind of the owner, their desires, fears and needs and tailoring a solution that translates that psychology to walls and spaces. Not an easy task.
Diligent as I was, I proposed that complexity be taught first, then context, then theory and then design.
Design studios would start with creating concepts and master plans for urban places without many details, almost as little kids playing with blocks. That way they would understand the relation between buildings in physical space.
More detail would be added as they did the same with large complexes first and finished with a very detailed, beautiful house that would have been the epitome of organized complexity, going into details that would be within the grasp of a 23 year old.
Needless to say, the curriculum didn’t fly.
Why do I tell you this now? Because I’ve had a few conversations around that topic and think it would be a good idea to offer such a curriculum as an independent study.
There is an abundance of courses online, mostly teaching how to draw, how to lose weight and how to gain followers on Twitter. I’d think that a study of architecture that starts with unlearning what we did at Architecture School would be rather boring.
However, let me ask you. Do you think it could work? Let me know what you think. I’d love to read your impressions.