Architectural introspection

(image by A. Barake)

Some professions are famous for introspection, i.e. endless debates about what it means to be an X. Architecture must be at the top of the list. Maybe it is the word. Information architects, IT architects, enterprise architects and the original culprits: (building) architects.

Some light shone on the causes of this recently, through a letters to the editor response in the summer issue of Perspectives, the organ of the Ontario Association of Architects. The original article, by Martin Poizner questions the reasons that architects earn on average less than real-estate agents and asks whether this is an indication of how little their work is valued.

It is the response, by Ian Ellingham of Toronto which I think is very interesting. He puts forth the notion that architecture has given up responsibility for the entire process of building and has recently focused on very narrow definitions of design, leaving much of the rest of the process to engineers (2 or 3 kinds are usually involved), urban planners, general contractors, technologists, building officials, and financiers.

He has a point, and he drives it home with a comparison to a more successful profession: medicine. Doctors specialize, but they all have the fundamental medical training first.

The same should be said of the construction specialities I list above. Wouldn't it be great if they all had to undergo basic architecture training first, learn about proportions, history of architecture, learn how to draw and how to put materials together, understand the motivations behind building and fire codes, learn about structure and properties of materials, and study great building and try their hand at designing? But as it stands now, most of the people who have power over the construction of the built environment do not have this complete set of basic skills, except the architects, and they are relegated (or have relegated themselves) to design.

There are many possible reasons for this. Architecture can claim roots in the arts since the Renaissance (in the Western tradition). Michelangelo after all was one of the designers of St. Peter's. Engineering and architecture separated during the Enlightenment for many reasons that Perez-Gomez writes about. One of my hypotheses is that people study architecture today as a way to make a living as an artist, a "safe" form of art as it were.

Unfortunately, any artistic creation requires artistic control, and architects are increasingly losing control of what they build. Because they are inherently generalists, they are sometimes perceived as "not good enough" to lead the building process. I think that to remedy this, architecture training should be the basis of all other building consultant professions, not a specialty on its own.

It may be too late to do this and we may need another name, since the word has become overloaded and its origins no longer relevant - the uber builder is now sometimes the under earner.