Is the Profession of Architecture Corrupt?
Posted: April 27th, 2010 | Author: Jane Gaboury | Filed under: Education, Publications | Tags: Add new tag, Education, ethics, professionals |The following guest blog is from Victoria Beach, an independent architect and former lecturer in architecture at the Harvard School of Design.
Is the profession of architecture corrupt? According to the definition of “institutional corruption” currently in use at the Center for Ethics at Harvard University, yes.
The Center’s new director, renowned attorney Lawrence Lessig, has defined as “corrupt” organizations that have tragic structural flaws that undermine their own purposes for being. He has recently re-focused the Center’s resources on studying these ineffectual institutions and their corrosive effects.
Now, apply this descriptive framework to the architectural profession. Its purpose for being is to create architecture — that is, to make art out of the science of building. The purpose of this art, if there is one, is often debated but most agree it should engage, if not uplift, the individual mind and body as well as human culture as a whole. What kinds of structural features might be holding back the profession from consistently achieving these results?
Here are some possibilities.
- Though the situation varies from school to school, the design academy tends to attract narrowly educated technicians, often without college degrees or any experience in the humanities, and proceeds to advance that narrow focus. This may be a distant residue of an ancient need for draftsmen and laborers, which is rapidly being made obsolete by computer technology. This vestigial practice can prevent architects from understanding and engaging their work in the larger social questions and from collaborating with their broadly educated peers in law, medicine, and the like.
- The internship that the architectural profession requires for licensure takes place in un-accredited, un-monitored, private offices across the country. Because this three-year period is mandatory, offices have an incentive to exploit intern labor, using it for self-serving rather than educational ends. Interns have no leverage to change these conditions and thereby further their training. Often they work for little or no pay, in violation of national labor laws, which virtually ensures their permanent economic dependency on this flawed system.
- The examination for architectural licensure does not test for architectural acumen. It is primarily an engineering exam that does not capture qualitative aspects of humane design. The legal title “architect,” on which laypeople rely to find qualified assistance, therefore does not actually ensure any architectural ability.
- The ethical codes that the profession enforces have been diluted over the years to minimal standards of basic citizenship. They no longer require, and often don’t even describe, the actions that would produce architecture. Neither laypeople nor architects could easily discern from these codes what distinct values architects are meant to uphold and what purposes they are meant to serve.
- The primary professional society for architecture, the American Institute of Architects, mainly promotes, as its name suggests, architects rather than architecture. It is organized under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, which means it is a “business league,” “promoting the common economic interests of … a trade.” The general public can therefore be excused for interpreting this technicality exactly the way the government does: Architects are businesspeople first and professionals or artists second, if at all.
- The building industry has detected, enhanced, and leveraged the public’s confusion over what architects do. As architects surrender their leadership positions, the odds that buildings might serve interests beyond those of their developers worsen. Many architects now sit in the back offices of these developers and are economically dependent upon them – a circumstance that was ethically prohibited a century ago.
- But even without the influences of the building industry, architects are faced with the same ethical conundrums of “agency” that all professionals are. When lawyers are put in the compromising position of knowing information that might clarify the truth of a matter but condemn their own clients, they struggle (one hopes). But at least with the legal system, the zealous advocacy model was designed to provide representatives on more than one side of an issue. Architects, on the other hand, are charged with representing the needs of their paying clients as well as the often contradictory needs of the non-paying users and the non-paying public. There is no other designated agent for these unorganized interest groups.
These seven structural features may indeed be corrupting in Lessig’s sense of undermining the profession’s ability to serve its defining ethical goals. Furthermore, many even stickier ethical conundrums are posed by the very existence of an artistic pursuit structured as a professional and commercial enterprise.
These issues, among many others, have been under intense scrutiny through the ethical research and teaching of professor Carl Sapers and others at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. On April 26, the Carl M. Sapers Ethics in Practice Fund, was established at Harvard to continue and enhance this work. This presents a unique opportunity to raise the discourse of architectural ethics and to address these many challenges.
Is the profession of Architecture’s purpose to “make art out of the science of building?”
Your article is very thought provoking despite this initial, debatable premise. Professions exist in legal terms primarily; all other inferred meanings are allegorical. The legal purpose of the profession is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. This purpose has been stretched beyond reason to include turning buildings into art.
The fact is that few architects could be gainfully employed without the legal requirements for them, and a formal architectural education would be a luxury rather than a requirement if not required by law. The “corrupt” nature of the profession, as you put it, is that the “art” is forced upon a client base, and public who neither understand, appreciate nor would want to pay for it, given the choice. This is the narcissism of the profession that has developed over the last forty years, and it is this self indulgence which has lead us to the current situation.
Aesthetics have become esoteric. The general public, whom the profession is sanctioned to serve, has been deemed incapable of making reliable judgments regarding such high brow issues as aesthetics. Only the highly educated and trained eye of the architect should be entrusted with such decisions. And, once established as the highest court, even the client and those paying for the building must acquiesce to the architect’s opinions, despite any cost implications, or national bankruptcy. The system has been cleverly designed to assure this.
Our profession is not unique, and like others it is reaping what it has sown, and there are those who will resist change to the end because they are so heavily invested. Those who masterminded this state of affairs are in enviable positions today, and not by accident. Kudos to them. Perhaps we should expand the definition of “corruption” as we have expanded the definition of the “purpose of the profession.”
Alan G. Burcope, AIA, MBA, LEED-AP
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by dinet: Blog sprouts good debate: “few architects could be gainfully employed without the legal requirements for them” http://bit.ly/9o7Qjx...
I can clearly see the problem why the profession is corrupt, just by reading the above email. We have too many alan’s running the practice of architecture and making decisions for the rest. That’s the main problem.
Palito Loquito
BAN and against the aia, ncarb, leed-ap, naab— they are all the same people running the show.
We need a new organization that represents the new breed of young and youth talented architects. Everyone has had enough of the aia and their corrupt affiliations.
i think when one looks at charles eames, samuel mockbee, paolo soleri, and other enigmatic “architects” - then sees that mr. stern is designing the new african museum in new york - the idea of what an architect does and what he takes responsibility for becomes a very personal and individual matter. hard to regulate these decisions.
Despite my reluctance, a personal attack such as this merits a response.
While I am a member of the AIA, I am not one of those who are “running the show.” Quite the contrary, I work in a design-build firm that is not an AIA member firm.
As Ms.
GabouryBeach pointed out, the education system outputs young architects (by advancing a narrow focus) who do not realize that their sensibilities and lack of business training are contributing factors to maintaining the status quo. It is a vicious cycle. Self-righteousness leads to the idea that “we architects know what is best for everyone else, and if they are too stupid to recognize it, then we will find legislative ways to force it on them.”Those who hear the words “think outside the box” coming from their own mouths need to take a hard look at themselves and ask “am I inside or outside the box?”
Architecture can never be corrupted because you can’t fake talent. If a non-registrant isn’t good enough to buddy up with a licensed professional to pitch his/her presentations, then he/she is probably not good enough to begin with. I know plenty of talented “designers” who find a way to do what they got to do.
“Self-righteousness leads to the idea that “we architects know what is best for everyone else, and if they are too stupid to recognize it, then we will find legislative ways to force it on them.”
Huh?! In what way have architects used *laws* to force their ideas on anyone? If anything architects lament their inability to get their ideas popularized and built. Architects have little to do with the built environment and daily life in the USA today.
“Architecture can never be corrupted because you can’t fake talent.”
I think one look at the buildings in every city in this country will suggest that talent has nothing to do with architecture and hasn’t for some time.
The problem with Mr. Burcope’s institutionalized position is the assertion that architects need to be better business people and economists than anything else.
Usually everyone ELSE in industry of making buildings is in charge of a specific, narrow range of quantitative data: whether it’s a fire/life safety code issue, a programming issue, or a cost issue.
If we can agree that the quality of an environment has an impact on the well-being of its users, its surroundings, and the environment (as in: longevity = sustainability), then what kind of sense does it make to just throw the qualitative into a little accessory definition called ‘aesthetics’?
Mr. Burcope, your ‘aesthetics’ have become esoteric mostly because quality has become marginalized in this world of quantities.
And yes, the profession likely has itself to blame in not being the best stewards of the qualitative aspects of architecture. But I would beg to differ that most of us ever find ourselves even close to the ‘highest court’, forcing the acquiescence of clients and their precious short-term bottom-lines. Perhaps those are your wealthy starchitect friends who have made good business out of imposing their personal ‘aesthetic’ brands on a tiny but loud minority of buildings, while the rest of us keep trying to convince the bean-counters why design might actually be a good idea, worth paying a living-wage for.
Good article, some comments…
#1
- It is a bad argument to say that students will not receive a broad education because their teachers have a narrow focus of specialization. Students learn from a variety of specialists, each an expert on the subject matter they teach. Whether students decide (or are required by curriculum) to take Western Civ, Philosophy or advanced calculus is another matter.
#2
- Agreed on the first part. Intern development needs be more structured. In fact, internships should be more closely monitored and addressed as part of academia and have specific curricula and metrics to track its progress. Now, I disagree that practices are responsible for creating this “dependency” system. Students (and architects in general) need to value their skills and simply refuse to work for no pay.
#3
- Agreed 100%. Architects talk about the importance of licensure. Even NCARB feels like it needs to apologize for the difficulty of the process. It is TOO EASY. Having a license does not tell me that you are a good architect. Anyone with a few months to cram a bunch of Kaplan books can get a license. Thus the title “architect” means as much as “real estate agent”.
#4
- Also agreed 100%
#5
- The AIA is a weak organization, we are not as numerous as doctors or lawyers and have even less economic resources. Bringing up the section of the IRS code seems unnecessary. What is the problem here? Architects are business people and professionals. The AIA is just as weak as other like-professional organizations (you would be hard pressed to even think of a professional organization outside of the BAR and the AMA).
#6
- Troublesome, but not as bad as doctors working with pharmaceutical companies.
#7
- Huh? architects deal with other architects in historical preservation societies, in city councils, as client representatives, neighborhood associations, activist groups, etc. Yes, there is no “designated agent”, but most large projects have a multi-adversarial system in place.
This post and its subsequent comments are very telling – to reference the author’s last bullet, “architects are faced with the same ethical conundrums of ‘agency’ that all professionals are.” This is an undeniable fact.
While the argument here might be distilled to reflect an ethical issue that seems to have evolved from historical changes (in society, professional requirements, human needs) in combining art and building science, as a non-architect—but rather, chemical engineer—I am interested to see how ethics is incorporated into another profession not from the profession’s principles but the profession’s people. Engineering advances with continued scientific and technological advances and is only unrelated to art in so much as the visual aspect of the work product is nowhere as necessary as it is in architecture; however, those who practice engineering can ultimately determine the fate of what constitutes an ethical problem in the face of a more “absolute” sense of design (only after the math is done, the science is validated and the purpose for the design is established). It is important to at least have a reference point for what constitutes corruption, or an ethical breach, within the profession—or else how can anyone arbitrate it? A Code of Ethics is a (perhaps only preliminary) step in the right direction, and as unfamiliar as I am with architecture, I am curious to know if there is an example Code that architects can unilaterally cite.
I am facing a similar conundrum in chemical engineering regarding the ethical aspect for the introduction of sustainability concepts in engineering design or process development. Shouldn’t engineers be mindful of the longer-lasting effects of their processes and manufactured products?
Here’s an example of a profession in parallel peril: http://chenected.aiche.org/sustainability/space-for-ethics-in-sustainability/. Thoughts from other professionals (or business people, as this discussion seems to designate all employed persons) are welcome!
You have conflated bankruptcy with corruption. Architecture might be bankrupt because the licensure process is not concerned with aesthetics, but it is certainly corrupt with regard to unregulated internship.
[...] mainly promotes, as its name suggests, architects rather than architecture.” A guest post in design intelligence by Victoria Beach suggests that: According to the definition of “institutional [...]
Two quick points that would make my professors for Critical Thinking and Survey Methodolgy proud:
1) The Center for Ethics at Harvard University provide a definition for a “corrupt organization” but does not offer a definition of a “corrupt industry.”
2) I wonder if the author’s sample was a representative sample of the industry across all spectrums of practice and sizes of firms.
These two, admittedly pragmatic points are rather important in refuting the claim that the “Profession of Architecture is Corrupt.” While I accept that there are instances of corruption in our profession, I find it hard to accept that our entire profession is corrupt. Here are some comments on the individual points which were made – many of which I agree with. It’s the blanket statement that the entire profession is corrupt that I disagree with.
Academia – It’s ludicrous to say that the design academy attracts narrowly educated technicians. Since the Bauhaus movement, there are plenty of examples in US architecture schools that have taken the highly collaborative, cross disciplinary approach to teaching architecture. You can look at Columbia, Pratt, Sci_arc, UK and even a few great years from the GSD for examples of this.
Internship –Perhaps things are different in California than elsewhere but I worked for four different firms while I was studying as both an undergrad and grad student and all of the firms I worked for paid me an hourly wage. The firms seemed to take the internship process seriously and were all very reactive to my requests for training review, planning future work to accommodate gaps in experience and supported the NCARB IDP process.
Examination – I agree completely. This is a common issue that people [myself included] bring up about the examination process. I agree that it misleads the public into thinking that: A) those who have a license are ensured to possess architectural ability and B) those who do not have a license do not have architectural ability. I have adopted the phrase “meeting the minimum levels of competency” to describe those who have a license.
Ethical Codes – I think the expectations are too high for Ms.
GabouryBeach here. Codes of Ethics and Ethical Standards have to be so diluted in this country because of discriminatory claims and fair conduct laws that no Code of Ethics can have any real teeth. I agree that their not very useful in our industry but I don’t have high expectations for Code of Ethics as it is anyway.Professional Society for Architecture – Perhaps a bit more research would have served this portion of the article well. I just got done reading the most recent issue of AIA’s Associate News and Forward
http://www.aia.org/akr/Resources/Documents/AIAB082785 http://info.aia.org/nwsltr_nacq.cfm?pagename=nacq_nwsltr_current
and find that both are often promoting people beyond simply their fellow members of the AIA. They, among many other publications do strive to promote the “craft of architecture” as opposed to simply promoting architects or AIA architects.
Building Industry – I have to share a link to a TED Talk that Joshua Prince-Ramus of REX [formerly OMA] delivered which does a great job of addressing this very issue. If you don’t have time just watch the first 5 minutes: http://www.ted.com/talks/joshua_prince_ramus_building_a_theater_that_remakes_itself.html
I agree that we have been somewhat cowardly in the past 80+ years and that the new generation must [re]seize the trust and confidence we once had from society.
Agency – I stand with Ms.
GabouryBeach here in criticizing those who simply serve the paying clients without challenging themselves to use their opportunities to address cultural, behavioral, societal, civic issues through their work. To do simply what a client ask for and not think about how the client’s program fits into the bigger picture of its context and the context of global society is taking the path of least resistance and that’s not what we spent countless hours in architecture school learning – at least not where I studied [www.sciarc.edu].[...] and former Harvard lecturer Victoria Beach, writing in Design Intelligence, says architecture is suffering from “institutional [...]
Architect: A person who, while originating from a middle to upper middle class background, has assumed a self image of aristocracy due to a belief that through intellectual and aesthetic pursuit and mastery, has been elevated to that level. Having attained this level, he/she is now sanctioned to levy upon the masses edicts of the correct way to build, to live, to politic and typically to render such without regard to economy.
I’m always suspicious of attempts to define architecture as “art.” This is an old beaux-arts notion that no longer feels applicable. We are designers, who make functional spaces that are also often beautiful. In some sense what we do is akin to making a car. Making a building is just as complicated, or more complicated than designing a car, except that for architects, every single building is the beta version. We start anew every time.
I think that Alan misinterprets what is going on in the more experimental sectors of architecture right now. Sure, some people are playing aesthetic games, but the majority of my friends and colleagues in academic architecture and at high-design firms are much more intent on design processes, fabrication, materials, and passive systems than they ever were. The problem, it seems, is that the profession is dominated by the developers who provide the money, and thus by a corporate mentality.
My perception is that in the US at least the old guard who runs the AIA and other institutions are slow to adapt. They don’t necessarily provide guidance for how to become a 21st century profession, nor for how architects might gain some autonomy from developers.
May I suggest the following regarding the topic of ethics. It can be found as follows:
http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/9649
Or go to http://www.breakpoint.org/breakpointcommentaries and scroll down to the topic “The problem with Ethics” - in that article you will find a link to a speed that Chuck Colson - yes he of Watergate - gave to the Ethics Center at Harvard in 1992. I suggest anyone commenting on this blog read this. It is spot on given the relativism we live with in the culture today.
Happy Reading.
Um…I meant speech - NOT speed - what was I thinking??!! Sorry.
If developers and corporate mentality are obstructing architects from advancing the “art” and “everything else that architecture should be beyond art,” then why don’t the architects who feel that way simply become developers and corporate entrepreneurs?
Here is why….because they can’t, their own self-righteousness and under-thought value system preempts them from surviving in a truly competitive marketplace.
It’s always someone else, the government, the evil greedy businessmen, the “man” who is keeping them down.
You can’t live in the world you imagine, you can only try to change the world you live in into one that resembles your imagination.
always nice to read thoughtful commentary, however, one proves the premise with the exception…SO, be so kind as to point out some exceptions, case studies, etc. and, how do harvard school of architecture and the last 40 years of harvard grad-led firms rate??
The reason that architecture suffers in this country is not because of the AIA’s mission, or because the licensure exams are too technical, or because design isn’t codified in land use code. You cannot codify quality design, or test for it. The reason that architecture suffers is that the publilc does not value it for what it really is. We, as architects, need to start creating more examples of why they need us. We have to solve problems, make life more enjoyable, more contemplative, more beautiful, through design and then point to it and say “that’s architecture”.
[...] Is the Profession of Architecture Corrupt? [...]
[...] loves a juicy expose of corruption in the field. A recent Design Intelligence post, “Is the Profession of Architecture Corrupt?”, isn’t that. It’s a lot more substantial, and it appears to be just the beginning of a hearty [...]
There are those who believe that the architect’s role in society is to represent the greater good, the social conscience in the building process. They believe them to be knights in shining armor fighting off the great beasts represented by evil greed, the inclination toward short term returns, quantifiable and economically justifiable investment, ignorance and apathy toward aesthetics and environment, and just plain stupidity. These are no doubt formidable foes that need to be tamed by some means. The question is, are architects the right knights to do it?
The legal purpose for architects however has nothing to do with any of these issues. The legal purpose for the licensure of architects is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. Primarily this is done through the proper interpretation and application of building codes which protect the public from being killed or injured by poorly designed buildings. Notice that I did not say poorly “constructed” buildings. There is another set of laws and licenses that are intended to fulfill that purpose.
The responsibility for the protection of the public welfare, while being an issue of regulatory enforcement, is levied upon private sector practitioners, architects, who act legally as the police force charged with enforcing the laws (codes) on the streets. Regulatory review processes are a very real part of every project, however, these government review boards do not assume responsibility for the compliance of any project. It is the architect who certifies that the building design is code compliant. That is the reason that a licensed architect must put his/her personal stamp on the construction drawings in most states.
The conflict that emerges in architectural practice arises from the fact that a private practitioner is charged with representing the interests of society, and yet, he/she is compensated directly by the client, who may well have a whole different and conflicting set of interests from the public.
Clever as architects are as individuals, and as a collective, they have developed contractual relationships (AIA Documents) that essentially absolve the architect of the financial responsibility for managing these conflicts, and in fact, even increase the architect’s fees when there is more conflict. This has created another conflict, a conflict of interest which has lead to a whole host of problems and a deterioration of the profession both in image and in compensation. Clients are frustrated with architects who seem less interested in serving them than they do on “saving the earth,” or creating “aesthetic masterpieces.” Is it any wonder that the profession is in decline?
If you look at Lessig’s presentation on patents (http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html), you can extrapolate that to apply to all professions… those in power exercise power to maintain power.
Any system that reaches a steady state where the status quo is maintained for long periods of time has reached the adult level of growth. The only thing that will mitigate the impact of this system on other systems is a new, separate system that essentially kills the original system and absorbs the energy previously going to the original system.
Architecture, landscape architecture, planning, law, medicine… these are all professions that are reaching their zenith and will maintain their current state until something else comes along and steals the energy currently running through these systems.
Perhaps online collaborative design groups and peer-reviewed building certifications could one day replace architecture and building permits… around the same time that individuals go back to building their own homes a la Christopher Alexander. Until then, this “corrupt” state will endure.
Apparently Mr. Sapers has been close enough to the fire to get soot on his boots. Clients over a thirty five year period include NCARB, AIA and many architecture firms. If there are ethical issues, I would suspect he will be acutely aware of them.
http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/people/faculty/sapers/
[...] Is the Profession of Architecture Corrupt? – Some of the criticisms seem off-base to me (unpaid internships, technically minded specialist programs in schools) and certainly aren’t my experience. But other criticisms are more accurate. More a piece for thought than a piece I wholeheartedly agree with, but a useful quick read. [...]
I am floored at the ignorance and naivete of the original posting by Ms. Beach. In my experience, many architects recieve a broader education than almost any other undergraduate major in the university; is a history major who doesn’t know how to solve a simple algebra problem “widely educated”? Is a chemist who is unfamilar the work of Pallado “widely educated”? In my experience in the academy, those architecture students who were not interested in wider issues (and who were not good students throughout the curricullum) were not very good designers.
I do know that there are some interns who work to gain experience without compensation. In my experience, this is somewhat localized phenomena. It can result from students being given the impression that they cannot be successful architects without being excellent designers and that they must work for great designers to be great designers. This is not true, and most architects would agree that it can be extremely exploitive and is not merely unethical, but illegal. Firms that are able to attract these types of young people are usually inefficient and most likely would not survive if they had to pay people for the work they did even at minimum wage. As for the argument that these people are incapable of doing work worth being paid for… It it is true, then those people should not be pursuing architecture as a career at all, and allowing them an “unpaid internship” takes support from someone who has more to offer. If a firm needs work doing that is not worth paying for, then something is wrong with that organization. Students; interns; DON’T WORK FOR FREE! That means you are worth less than the receptionist whose only responsibility may be to wait for the phone to ring (actually a good receptionist is worth more pay than a good intern and many principals, but that is a different posting).
The AIA is corrupt in the sense that it tries to do too much. It is actually very good at some stuff, but it is very poor at presenting architects as having a coherent body of expertise, the result of a lack of disagreement over the body of expertise that architects should have. The AIA represents a body that has many voices, and the AIA has decided to echo those many voices with the result that its message is often diluted. I suspect that Ms. Beach would not agree that the strongest service that the AIA provides is the development and maintenance of documents such as AIA A 201 (something you really don’t want to look at when you are on your last charrette in school). It is this effort, however, that affects most widely the practice of architecture and the construction industry.
It seems to me that a key question in all of this is “Do architects want to be primarily responsible for public health and safety?” This is what architects have been saying to the public for more than 100 years to justify licensing/registration laws. If architects say that they are a type of visual designer specializing in the aesthetics of building design, does the responsibility for health and safety devolve to engineers and contractors?
There are some award-winning buildings out there which have turned out to be disasters with relatively short useful lives. There are many other utilitarian structures that get used, reuesed, adapted, and reused again. It is an Owner (frequently a developer) with the capital resources who has the means to accomplish this with a support team. Most intelligent developers (this is not necessarily an oxymoron) consider a good architect to be an important member of the team. A good architect is one who works hard to implement his client’s goals, but also understands when to tell that client “No.”
What a debate! What insight and discourse! What planet are you from?
With the exception of Alan and a few others, you seem to be from the planet “Thereoughttobealaw’ where those who can’t get respect for the great things they feel they contribute to their society can invent laws that force others to appreciate them.
As some commentators have mentioned, there are ways to put your money where your mouth is, to place yourself at the very center of our society’s urban and built-environment issues…but sadly many of us would rather stand well out of danger (and well out of relevance) and lob pretentious and self-serving rants.
Either figure it out or log back on when you grow up.
[...] That is the question Harvard educator Victoria Beach asked recently at the Design Intelligence blog. Read what your contemporaries have to say in one of the liveliest, most animated online [...]
[...] http://www.di.net/blog/2010/04/is-the-profession-of-architecture-corrupt/ [...]
[...] [The Globe and Mail] Hume: Hockey trumps planning in Toronto [The Toronto Star] INTERNATIONAL Is the Profession of Architecture Corrupt? [Design Intelligence Blog] Stop by Stop, Subway’s Decline and Growth in 2009 [The New York [...]
Why don’t all of you unhappy frustrated types just leave the profession altogether and allow those of us with even a modicum of talent and desire to practice?
(I concur with Mr. Jordan’s comment … we ARE broadly educated!)
“Minimum levels of competency” have dropped down SO far … recently licensed folks are only tested on pieces of buildings and aren’t given a comprehensive exam in one sitting. It’s too easy to become licensed today.
[...] title caught my eye, as well it might yours. It is the subject of a posting on the Design Intelligence website, and well worth a read in total on the original site. While written by “Victoria Beach, an [...]
Architecture stdents need to be trained differently for the new reality. Students need to learn the real business of architecture, like how typical deals put together, how a profitable office operates,
how various codes shape a design.
[...] but the debate gained new momentum when the NYT posted an article on it. The debate really heats up here, on Design Intelligence blog, where the subject is Architecture: A Corrupt Profession? Posts and [...]
Perhaps not a ‘corrupt’ profession, but a ‘failed profession’. That failure, however, is quite a bit the responsibility of the leading schools and academics who go on teaching things only useful in a small part of the profession. But I doubt a GSD grad will go down that road.
Question the leadership rather than the profession as a whole.
By and large, I agree with Matthew’s comment:
“I’m always suspicious of attempts to define architecture as “art.” This is an old beaux-arts notion that no longer feels applicable. We are designers, who make functional spaces that are also often beautiful. In some sense what we do is akin to making a car. Making a building is just as complicated, or more complicated than designing a car, except that for architects, every single building is the beta version. We start anew every time.
I think that Alan misinterprets what is going on in the more experimental sectors of architecture right now. Sure, some people are playing aesthetic games, but the majority of my friends and colleagues in academic architecture and at high-design firms are much more intent on design processes, fabrication, materials, and passive systems than they ever were. The problem, it seems, is that the profession is dominated by the developers who provide the money, and thus by a corporate mentality.”
If anything, I think there are opportunities to better align where architectural research is (at least some of the parts of it Matthews mentions) and industry trends such as BIM, IPD, PLM & user experience design.
Also, it seems that the author ignores an important point. The notion of architecture as art is derived from a time when most building was not done by architects and architects only primarily focused on exceptional structures for large institutions and wealthy clients. Our reality is that almost all building requires an architect now and most of what we design is not intended to be “architecture” in the classical sense nor is it funded (with respect to money, time or allowance for creative freedom) to be architecture.
Rather, I think the profession does an admirable job in understanding and addressing this aspect of its current role. I know many humble architects who make good, functional buildings and squeeze in just as much aesthetic refinement as circumstances will allow.
At the same time, there are still clients that want “architecture” in the classical sense and there are those that gravitate to them to provide it. But this is not the majority of work and I don’t think anyone should see guilt or shame in that. Most of us perform a service in the interest of the public and on top of it, we get to be a little creative every now and then.
But to return to my first point, I do think that in terms of strengthening the profession’s sense of itself and how it presents itself to the public at this time, in terms of practically defining the role and value of aesthetics in relation to necessary commercial pursuits, and also to make the production of academia and the profession more synergistic - or at least to help everyone see the opportunities - it does seem that appreciating what we do as more analogous to product design, to interaction design, to user experience design and even to systems engineering will help us strengthen our position professionally and intellectually.
JCM’s points regarding the nature of architecture today are well taken and right on the money from my perspective so I won’t repeat them.
Most architects work hard to design good buildings but there are a myriad of pressures that work against this. Architects navigate through issues of budget, zoning ordinances, building codes, neighborhood groups, accepted construction techniques and legal peril in their effort to make buildings that are both useful and wonderful to be in.
We must admit, when we look around at the built environment we have made, it is generally not very good. When I say we I mean our culture, not just architects.
As we move forward it remains the architects job to find ways of making buildings and places that are better than what we have. It is the architects job to have a vision of a better built world and inspire the public toward that vision. Some might call this an elitist position. I call it being responsible to a higher calling dedicated to a high quality of life for everyone.
We can do a better job if we recognize the whole problem instead of blaming the Profession.
I feel sorry for Mr. Burcope’s cynical view of architecture.
Don’t get em wrong, I get very frustrated with what our profession has done to the built environment. Just the fact that we have to make the distinction between “building” and “architecture speaks volumes of our failings as a profession.
I have not and hope to ever think of myself as part of an aristocratic mindset imposing MY will on my clients.
Architecture for me is a continual search. A continual exploration of ideas the meld a clients desires and dreams into a more global context. Architecture aspires to inspire. It should not be an imposition but a desire to be more than just an existence.
Part of the problem is that architects do need to promote and educate the public at large. Ignorance of what an architect does is pandemic and that is what needs to be discussed.
As to the weakness of our professional associations well that can only be fixed from within and it starts with people starting to take the bull by the horns and making it happen.
Only in the USA could you have a debate about whether or not is “the profession of architecture corrupt?”. A very entertaining read, but with a couple of very astute commentaries (Alan G and J Peter) amongst the cleverness. But down here in Australia, we are just getting on with it. Our firm employs talented young students whilst still at university and they tend to stay on or are encouraged to move on to employers who can better cater to their skills.
You guys worry too much! Chill out and enjoy the ride. And having interns (as you call them) around the office is a pleasure. They add enthusiasm, optimism and humor.
Architecture is based in building. Get your staff on site as laborers, steel workers, etc. Our practice is always building one of our designs. Its a great learning environment as well as being very gratifying.
If any students are reading this and are heading down-under at some stage, please feel free to get in touch. We work hard, play hard, then go home.
It seems Ms Beach would have professionals represent “disorganized” groups who don’t have a position except that they would be affected by development in their unorganized state. “Builders of the world unite”, maybe, “to build for the betterment of others”. Admittedly, the outcome of development to the end user varies alot, but that’s life, ocaisionally corrupted.
Ms Beach gripe is not founded in ethics.Perhaps the ethics insufficently codified include stylistic preferences and political affiliation, or an endless compliant of other’s shortcomings and misunderstandings.
The poblems stated with internship are not informed, and though problems with the exam do exist, the quality of interns has never been higher.
By promoting architects, the AIA does promote architecture. This is not obvious to Ms Beach but it’s not complicated - it’s like Academy Awards promotes films. That’s called the “indirect effect.”
Unfortutely, Ms Beach is confused about alot - what architects and developers do for a living, that is, when they’re not out trying to save the world, which is way more confusing to me.
As far as making an ethical position, start by checking your facts, set aside personal prejudice, and avoid hyperbole that could be misconstrued for the truth. Settle into this rewarding occupation called architecture that does not require the reinvention of ethics. Focus on the reinvention of architecture. Avoid corruption and vexation through creative thinking and acts. Leave the simplistic discussion of ethics aside, our failures in the profession are more complicated.
This strikes me as grandiose talk from someone that does not have to make a payroll so employees kids can have a roof over their heads!
Two things this author needs to do to grow and expand her horizons:
1. Follow the money, it does not stop or originate at the architect. Architects do not control what gets built anywhere.
2. Start a firm, get work, and try to survive untill you get paid. Then come back and re-write the article once there is real dirt under her nails.
If the profession of architecture is truely corrupt as stated in the article then what in this country is not corrupt.
I do not USE my interns I employ them and thus they can pay their bills and feed themselves. If I did not pay my interns they would not come to work.
What world is she living in?
I like the Aussie’s attitude but, just because we discuss and debate doesn’t mean we don’t have fun. We also build some of our projects and we also love the process with all of its warts.
I’m just designed a house Daintree Rain Forest in Queensland. I’m working with one of your mates to get it done.
Architecture is no more corrupt the the frivolous studies conducted in the Ivy League.
See below from a doctor Facebook friend -
“Very interesting. With the substitution of a few words, the argument could be applied to organized medicine.”
[...] of Architecture Corrupt? May 12, 2010 Michael Roush, AIA Leave a comment Go to comments DesignIntelligence » Blog Archive » Is the Profession of Architecture Corrupt?. This is a fascinating article on the health of the profession. I’m not sure I agree with [...]
“Most people have work that is too small for their spirits.” — Studs Terkel.
This debate centers on the externalities of the profession and assumes that these externalities dictate and shape the responses and actions of architects. Willa Cather eloquently stated, “That is happiness: to be dissolved into something complete and great.” I for one am governed by my internal ethical, social justice and creative spirit-not these externalities. If someone is corrupt, they are wounded and can not be, by definition, open to the joy and possibilities of great architecture. Corruption is solved not by institutions but by internal awareness, moral obligations and human justice and fairness. Jeffrey A. Scherer, FAIA, past president of AIA MN.
A lively discussion indeed! Judging by the defensiveness exhibited in some of the comments, I believe the article has been misinterpreted. I didn’t read Ms. Beach’s blog to be an attack on the profession; rather an examination of the profession from a different point of view.
As an architect with nearly 10 years of experience, I have felt, heard, and experienced all sides of this debate firsthand. Yes, architecture is a profession and a business. Yes, good design has a profound impact on the built environment and how we experience it. Our challenge as architects is to find a balance between the two that allows the profession to sustain itself over the long term.
Thank you, Victoria, for a a thought-provoking blog. I wish to dispute your main assertion, that architecture is corrupt, without disagreeing with any of your supporting points, each of which is true enough.
Architecture is corrupt when, and I’ll use the nation of Turkey as an example, bribery and favoritism compromise the structural integrity of buildings to the point that they are unsafe for human habitation. Though I’m sure that occurs in the U.S. at times, it is not systemic. When architects routinely falsify plans, builders falsify payment requests, and inspectors falsify inspection reports, that is a corrupt system. It is not, for the most part, the system we have in the U.S.
Having said that, I think all your supporting points are good and worthy of discussion in their own right. Architects do live in tension between the paying client’s wishes and the public good, and we need to be reminded of it on a regular basis. But the claim that because we sometimes lean too far in one direction we are therefore corrupt is overreaching, in my opinion.
Is the practice of architecture corrupt? Now is that moral or ethical corruption posed in this question?
Given the complexity of the language that we’re so casually batting about here, I believe that we’re missing a few key definitions – and there really is no such thing as an objective universe, so definitions in this case are going to be muddy at best.
What defines Architecture? Now the architecture with a capital ‘A’, the aspirations that we’ve all had as architects when entering the profession to move the human soul thru the built environment and contribute to society and human existence in a meaningful way does fit the description that Ms Beach is discussing here. As a licensed professional I’d argue that this particular definition exists in roughly 10-15% of the buildings constructed nowadays – and there are a multitude of factors that determine this.
“What kinds of structural features might be holding back the profession from consistently achieving these results?” In a word? Clients.
Follow the money. The practice of architecture in all its forms is a collaborative process, driven by all sorts of variables, site, budget, time, program, material costs/availability, personal agendas and aspirations (either veiled or apparent), codes, environmental concerns, and a host of things that never seem to make it into the stated project goals at the inception of the project. Remember, A camel is a horse, designed by committee. As with any relationship, there are wins, losses and concessions in the process. That is, unless you’re Howard Roark or Frank Lloyd Wright wandering the site with the wrecking bar as bricks go whistling by his head.
In the design and construction process toward creating a building, whether destined for world recognition, or whether it becomes the ‘corner store’ in a small hamlet somewhere, the architect’s moral and ethical obligation is to supply the client with a solution that meets the stated goals to the problem at hand. To provide a structurally sound, code compliant, healthy and effective solution that adheres to a budget, schedule, program, and a host of other variables (each competing with aesthetics for top billing), so that the client may use this property as they see fit. To paraphrase Michelangelo, It is the architect’s job to unearth the solution from a pile of parts to create something that meets ‘firmness’ and ‘commodity’ and to try and breathe as much life and influence as they can on ‘delight’ while still maintaining the initial objectives.
And let’s face it – there are more people in this world that know the price of things and then know the value of them.
Is it morally and ethically wrong to not break the client’s budget, stray from stated objectives and needs in order to create something that they didn’t want, can’t afford to pay for, but is yet somehow profound in the eyes of the critics? I’d say that that it’s more lamentable to do that than it is to design something that’s less aesthetically pleasing to the ‘mob’, than it is to serve the needs hopes and aspirations of the client.
I’m not making excuses here, in my 15 years of experience, I’ve worked in all aspects of the building trades, whether it be an apprentice to trades constructing the building, or the guy given the charge to design and detail it, or any job role in between.
Before formal schooling began, I worked as a draftsman for a log home company. Here I designed houses all over the world, learned the value of designing things so that someone could actually build it, what schedule meant and how to detail.
During Architecture School, it’s largely up to the student to determine his/her curriculum. A degree was/is defined by reaching certain number of credits in a field of study, as well as achieving the base-level criteria for what is determined as a ‘well-rounded’ education. That’s just one facet as I’d argue that it’s up to the individual to learn everything and anything that they can while at an institution put together to teach, and stay hungry for this knowledge well after their tuition is paid.
During my internship, I worked for several firms and companies, either practicing architecture with the capital ‘A’ or the lowercase ‘a’ the process was largely the same… ‘design’ was either promoted or discouraged based on the goals of the project (largely unstated), and the vision or lack thereof of the principal of the project. To which I’ve learned that as a principal, it’s important to ask the right questions and flush out all of the needs, hopes, dreams and aspirations of the client, whether they’re aware of them or not. Regardless of the criteria or who’s design goals were being met, I was fairly compensated during this entire process. The pay was lower, and the hours long – but that’s one of the underlying rules to the profession.
As a professional, again working for various facets of the industry, for developers who only see the bottom line and the ROI, to the small business owners that want to make a small statement about what it is they do, to the boutique design firm that places design and inspiration above all other aspirations of the process (and currently serving as an ‘architect without a firm’)
I find myself asking as a result of this, am I more or less corrupt if I’m a sole practitioner working on residential designs to pay bills? Having gone thru the gauntlet of schools, IDP, and working for a variety of firms on everything from light industrial, residential, institutional, to high-end commercial… am I morally and ethically corrupted by the process?
My personal short answer is ‘no’ because character is not defined by outside influence. I strive every day to do the best that I can for my clients, to try and get back into the role at the firm that I love, so that I might partake in that architecture with the capital ‘A’, but by no means am I, nor are the design solutions ‘less’ simply because my options are limited.
Basically, after writing this response, I believe that the answer to this entire question resides in another question, posed to the individual. Do you expect a faceless entity to define your stated goals, ethics, morals, or how much profundity and talent is in your collaborative creations - OR do you prefer to leave that to the client, patrons and occupants of these creations?
I, for one, would tend to (and will continue to) define my own path under the framework of the profession as to whether or not I’m moving the human race forward or whether there is any particular critical profundity or ‘art’ in the design solutions. I leave that up to the patrons, rather than the critics or some invisible hand trying to tell the profession that it’s not doing enough to delight the eye of the passer-by. Its really all just a question of scale and tone.
I believe the better phrasing to the initial column would’ve been to describe the profession as aesthetically bankrupt rather than morally or ethically corrupted.
I will offer an addendum to the earlier post, that I used to say that I was ‘losing my soul’ or described my particular job as ‘prostitution’ when I was working for certain places where design was treated as a negotiable commodity rather than a desired goal.
I don’t consider myself completely morally bankrupt by that process… although I’ve no desire to undertake it again.
Once you run thru the gauntlet of licensure, talent and character is going to determine your market value. The architecture school system was designed to weed out the weaker candidates, and it doesn’t matter that anyone with $1400 and 3 years of their lives can become licensed. If you don’t have the ability to deliver once you’ve reached that plateau - you’ll be ‘found out’ soon enough.
I disagree, non-paying users and the non-paying public have the most powerful agent of all, its called city officials. Architects are actually faced with the daunting task of appeasing two clients with different criteria. There is also a vechical that allows non paying users, alot of leverage as to what and if can be built on their own land. The right to use seems to have almost no merit today.
is the profession corrupt, or is the culture that it functions in that is corrupt?
in other words, (to use the author’s sense) does our culture have structural flaws that undermine its welfare, and, as a consequence, are its institutions tainted?
If architects as professionals are expected to “make art”, what and who decides that “art” has indeed been delivered?
I think the article is a bit dramatic, in that I don’t really think Architecture is any more corrupt than medicine, law, or academia. I think several of her points are misled:
_ I don’t believe that architecture schools are all about churning out ‘technicians’… quite the opposite. I think most kids leave architecture school without knowing what size a brick is.
_ I’ve worked for 3 offices of varying sizes in varying states, and all of them were committed to helping interns become architects. Sure, there are slave offices out their with interns working 80 hour weeks for free, but the intern knew that going into it and did it out of some urge to work for that famous firm, not because they were desperate for work.
_ I think architecture has always been about business, because for most owners a building is one of the largest investments they’ll ever make. There are market pressures to change the way in which architects do business, and I think the onus is on architects to make themselves more relevant… just like you can go to a CVS now and a nurse practitioner will write you a prescription without ever seeing a doctor, and you can go online and get legal advice or write a will without ever speaking to a lawyer.
_ For me, the key is separating ‘architecture’ from designing buildings. Samuel Mockbee practiced architecture. The majority of architects design buildings. Just because an architect was involved doesn’t make it architecture, nor should every building be high architecture. I think of it more as a long term goal than an everyday endeavor.
_ If in fact architecture is corrupt, I think its for a reason not listed by the blogger: Architects don’t know how buildings are constructed anymore. From the master craftsman at the cathedral building site to FLW or Ando, the great architects understand how materials work and connect with one another as well or better than the guy in the field putting it together. That’s what gives an ‘Architect’ their capacity for leadership and their relevancy to an owner and to society.
Having retained the DI eblast which contained Ms Beach’s link, i am compelled to comment before hitting “delete.”
The notion that our profession is “corrupt” may fit the definition of elitist academics but in the real world - in which I am deeply embedded - the assertion is foolish. At a time when genuine debate, reflection, research and reinvention are high on the agenda of any serious practice, such rhetoric is a distraction at best, thoroughly counter productive and just simply wrong.
Is it really useful to be as inflammatory as possible to prove one’s intellectual prowess?
I feel almost guilty in even extending the conversation.
Kent has some excellent points here and you can just feel his experience — his frustration with the rhetoric — it’s palpable. Thank you Kent for your thoughtful response.
The reason I’ve chosen to back this program and its questions at Harvard is because I think more professionals need to understand what it is to be a true professional. Some argue that we’ve lost the true professional in today’s context. I think not. Moreover, all professionals should understand why ethics matter. Getting to higher levels of understanding about professional and ethical habits can’t be a bad thing.
Well said, Jim. One thing to remember, though, is that those who deign to dispense diagnosis should do so from a position of recognized authority; I do not believe such a relationship is currently the status quo between practitioners and the Acadamy. It will take a truly herculean effort on the part of those presuming to speak to this subject to avoid an outcome in which the feud is simply escalated.
A wise man once said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
The challenges that Architecture faces in the early 21st century will only be overcome when there is a unified effort on the part of practitioners, regulators, and academics, working together and sharing a common purpose. Sadly, all of us seem to be vulnerable to charges that we are falling short of our responsibilities.