My moto about architecture.... you can put it on my grave people.
Architects are very good at looking at the same project from many different angles, but are not very good at seeing many different projects from the same angle.
Because that requires a level of disipline, dedication and stubborness, which they simply do not have.
Engineers, encode things very careful to be read by other engineers, and only other engineers... any of their best creations, from bridges, bicycles to cars are embodiments of an engineering code, that is only understood by other engineers.
That the guy who invented the first arrow for instance, he probably wasted a lot of arrows before finding one which flew fastest and furthest, with the minimum of effort.
I.e. He probably looked at many different arrow designs from the same viewpoint - efficiency.
Having by chance fell upon an arrow that worked well, the lessons learnt were possibly encoded into some obscure guild or brotherhood of arrow-makers, in some kind of 'arrow-speak'.
I don't think this is the case in Architecture.... and personally I think that it is both the worst and the best for it.
The education I received in architecture was excellent because it showed me how to review the same design from many different points of view.
But it never once even suggested that I may do the inverse - to look at many different designs from the one consistent view point.
You could see how self-destructive an attitude that would be for any architect to take.
Once I remember, I was asked how did I choose a design for my site.... my reply was, I choose a design and went around looking for a site!
That kind of reply, is calculated to drive even the mildest natured architects, stark raving mad - and to become utterly disgusted with you!
Bungalows are a classic example of 'the engineering way of thinking'. I don't find it surprising that engineering ways of thinking have dominated the creation of the built environment in the last century, as everything else in our daily lives at this stage has also been engineered.
We have grown to rely heavily upon engineering and to trust it.
In conclusion, Architects have not got the ability to encode anything - if they did, we would have a set curriculum and body of knowledge, which we could pass on to young students of architecture in third level colleges all over the world.
You would be able to look at any design and talk at length about how many pistons it uses, how much air it needs to compress and fuel needs to be injected. Standard variables.
But instead, we have the exact opposite to that. I don't accept the fact that drawing is a code, as has been argued.... it is a means of representation used by all kinds of people besides architects - rather than being specific to architects themselves.
Brian O' Hanlon.