The Rising Dragon: Design in China

Paul Doherty contributes the following guest blog. Paul is senior vice president of Screampoint, which provides governments, multinationals, and large real estate portfolio companies with visual solutions to manage and maintain their assets.

I am enjoying my adopted home country of the People’s Republic of China. I have settled into having a wonderful family, a growing business, and a feeling that the future is very bright. You take a keen interest in design when you make a place home. Just ask any residential designer about their clients’ interest level of every detail of their home.

I live and work in Shanghai in an area called the French Concession. Shanghai has been a city constantly shaped by its foreign trade, foreign invasions, and foreign occupation. You can see the influence of each era in the different parts of the city: the Bund, the German Concession, the English Concession, the French Concession. Thus, I live in an area that could be picked up and placed in the middle of Paris and not miss a beat.

But what makes a city is not just the vocabulary and context of its buildings. It lies in its smells, sounds and people. What makes Shanghai so wonderful is the variety of its smells, sounds, people … and its neighborhoods that make you feel as if you are in a different city by entering any one of them.

Shanghai is hosting the World’s Expo at the moment. Seventy million people have been to this city already to experience the Expo, with two more months to go. The showcasing of the world’s cultures, foods, and design are making this year’s Expo one of the best. The astonishing architecture and design of the numerous pavilions alone is worth the trip. But with the exposure to the world’s designs at the Expo — and understanding that Shanghai has a past that is shaped by outside design influences and architecture — a sensitive question is beginning to emerge in the design community of Shanghai and throughout China: What is modern Chinese design?

My personal view is that the Chinese are struggling with finding their own design vocabulary when it concerns buildings and the context of urban design. The majority of building design for large-scale development is coming from Western-based design firms. This has created a disturbing array of geometric shapes throughout cities like Shanghai that have not created a design movement, trend, or vernacular that can say to the world, This is a Chinese building.

One trend that is emerging is a movement toward historic preservation, seen in developments like Xintiandi, Tian Xi Fang, and the new Sinan Mansions. Taking its cue from the past, the rehabilitation of older Chinese structures and repositioning them for modern functions has rekindled an interest in older Chinese design forms, culture, and meaning. This combination of learning from the past to define the future could be giving rise to a new generation of Chinese designers who will define this century’s design in China.

One can only hope that in their home, a true design emerges that helps better define a city, a culture, and its people.

Is the Profession of Architecture Corrupt?

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.

How Long from Intern to Architect?

Today’s guest blogger is Matthew Arnold, who has been examining the duration and success rates of the Intern Development Program.

How long does an architectural internship actually take?

Official estimates range between three and five years, but that didn’t seem to be the case for any of the interns I knew or for that matter, any that they knew. I couldn’t find any hard data published anywhere, so I sent an e-mail to each of the U.S. NCARB-member boards asking what they could tell me.

Three boards — New York, Nebraska, and Oregon — furnished hard data in response to my request. New York provided records for all 15,088 actively licensed architects there. Nebraska and Oregon provided data for the actively licensed architects who had taken and passed the exam in their states, 626 and 800 individuals, respectively.

I made graphs of what they sent me, which you can fine here along with explanatory notes:

http://www.stairwaytoarchitecture.com/images/NY_STATE_REPORT.pdf

http://www.stairwaytoarchitecture.com/images/Nebraska_Report.pdf

http://www.stairwaytoarchitecture.com/images/Oregon_Report.pdf

The data show that the average time elapsed between graduation and licensure for architects licensed in 2009 exceeds public estimates. In New York it was 11.06 years; in Nebraska 10.89 years; in Oregon 8.96 years.

So as best as I can determine, the answer to how long it takes to become a licensed architect is 9 to 11 years. It is a rare intern who finds this surprising.

The trends in the data are disturbing, in particular the percentages of licensed architects whose internship was 5 years or less, between 5 and 10 years, and over 10 years in New York, as shown in this graph:

In New York in 1980, about three out of four internships took less than 5 years; today this is true for less than 10 percent of aspiring architects in that state.

Before 1980 it was rare for an internship to extend a decade or more in New York, but in 2009 it has become the rule: Half of all internships last at least that long. The trends are similar in Nebraska and Oregon.

There are still some states (New York among them) that do not require an NAAB-accredited degree in order to sit for the exam. These states typically require an (ostensibly) longer period of internship in order to compensate. If the duration of average internship for those with NAAB-accredited degrees is indistinguishable from those without one, the question as to the benefit of the degree in this regard is not an unfair one to ask.

Are three states a sufficient sample to enable us to draw any conclusions?

I’m an architect, not a statistician, but I think it is. These charts depict the professional records of slightly more than 16 percent of all currently licensed architects in the United States — about 1 in 6 of us. New York, Nebraska, and Oregon are distinct in population, geography, and economic characteristics.

I welcome additional hard data on this subject and expect it to support rather than contradict what shows up in the statistics from these three states.

Most states appear to rely on NCARB to maintain these records and are unable to provide them. NCARB tells me it cannot provide any information beyond what is posted on its Web site.

Is such an attenuated internship — amounting to more than 20 percent of a typical career — in the best interests of our profession? Why the discrepancy between what is necessary and what is (apparently) sufficient? Is this system functioning as designed? If so, why isn’t it functioning as advertised? Should we make any changes? What should we change? Are we really doing our best in this regard? Can we in good conscience as a profession continue to create false expectations in students and young professionals about their careers? These are only a few of the questions that the facts compel us to ask and answer.

There are more charts and a nascent discussion on this issue at my Web site. I will be happy to provide the raw data at cost to anyone upon request, and you can perform your own analysis.

Early next year, I’ll be asking the architects who sit on our state boards to obtain an accounting on this subject from NCARB. It’s time to take the future seriously. At the very least, we owe the next generation some honesty.

Prepared for the New Normal

According to official statistics, the deepest recession of the past 40 years is now behind us. The GDP is growing, the Dow has cracked 10,000, and interest rates remain at historic lows, keeping inflation in check.  Wall Street is even paying big bonuses again.

Yet to most people, the tangible effects of the recovery remain elusive.  Unemployment has increased over the past six months, the dollar has lost significant value on the currency markets, and many sectors of the economy (especially commercial real estate) remain fragile.  Is this what a recovery is supposed to feel like?

Unfortunately, yes. The economy may have bottomed out and experienced something of a bounce, but it’s certain that the boom years of 2005-2007 will not be returning any time soon. While it’s true that panic has subsided into caution, the credit markets remain deeply chilled, if not frozen. While some clients are doing planning new work in anticipation of a more robust recovery, very few new projects are getting the green light, and this state of affairs is likely to pertain for the foreseeable future.  Under these circumstances, a slow-growth, cost-sensitive economy is beginning to look like the new normal.

What’s a design firm to do?

Like it or not, get ready for increased competition. Significant layoffs in the profession have spawned a new generation of small, nimble design firms with low overhead. These new firms, often headed by well-regarded professionals with significant experience, can be formidable competition.In the past, perhaps a dozen or so contenders would be chasing any given project; these days, that number can easily double or even triple. Clients are increasingly price-sensitive, so expect significant downward pressure on fees. You will have to price your proposals accordingly, and when successful, execute the work with relentless efficiency. There will be little if any wiggle room.

This will almost certainly require a leap in technology, and specifically BIM, which can be used for all phases of the work from design through construction administration. Sophisticated users of BIM have found ways to create significant efficiencies in the documentation process and have even been able to eliminate the need for shop drawings during construction. Now that the GSA (as well as several states, including Texas and Wisconsin) have mandated BIM deliverables for all projects, the tipping point has clearly been passed. If you have not already done so, it’s time to get on board. Make use of your downtime to acquire the software and institute a firm-wide training program, as BIM capability is fast becoming a gating issue during the selection process.

This is also the time to invest in personal client contact. Brochures, mailings, and press releases about design awards have their place, but nothing beats a face-to-face discussion between real people. Remember that your clients are in the same leaky boat as you are: They are worried about volume, cash flow, and expenses, so anything you can do to ease their burden will be appreciated. Sometimes this is as simple as clipping an article about how to save on energy or maintenance cost and sending it along. Let your clients know that you are thinking about them and that you are a source of good ideas — both now and for the future. When they are ready to build again, they’ll remember this courtesy.

It’s also a good time to review and refine your value proposition. What is your firm really good at? How can you demonstrate that with hard data?  Which clients can benefit most from your particular skill set? Those are the ones you should be talking to. Put away your shotgun (though it’s tempting to go after any project that comes up, regardless of fit), get out your rifle, and take very careful aim. Your marketing dollars are precious, and you can’t afford to waste them. Think high impact:  What are the things that clients need to know that you can provide? What sets you apart from the competition? How are you going to communicate this clearly and convincingly to each and every prospect? Get in the habit of doing this, because it’s the best way to position your firm for long-term success, regardless of the state of the economy.

Above all, remain optimistic. Nobody likes a complainer. Don’t focus on problems — anybody can do that.  Instead, insist on finding solutions. Design is inherently about value creation, so make that part of your brand.  nd stay patient. The recession may be technically over, but its effects will linger for a while . Eventually, pent up demand will create more opportunity than you can handle. The U.S. economy, despite its recent bumps and bruises, is still more than twice the size of Japan’s (No. 2) and four times the size of China’s.

Like a good sailor, you need to position your sailboat to take advantage of that next puff of wind.

Ralph Hawkins Interview

Heads-up on what sounds to be an interesting television interview next week.

As Chairman and CEO of HKS Inc., Ralph Hawkins leads one of the top three architectural firms in the country. The Dallas-based company boasts a diverse portfolio, and its brightest star right now is the new billion dollar-plus Cowboys Stadium in Arlington.

Next week, KERA, the public radio and television station for north Texas, features an conversation with Ralph Hawkins, CEO of HKS. The interview, which will air on the station’s monthly half-hour business program “CEO,” will include a tour of the new stadium. Hawkins will also discuss how HKS is confronting the troubled U.S. economy by expanding globally and working on projects funded by the government.

Hawkins is a Senior Fellow of the Design Futures Council and a member of its executive board. Needless to say, this should be an illuminating and fascinating conversation.

“CEO” airs at 7:30 p.m. Friday, July 31 on KERA-TV and at 5 p.m. Sunday, Aug. 2 on KERA-FM. Those of us outside the reach of north Texas signals can find it streamed online after the broadcast at www.kera.org/ceo.