Galway, City Architect?

Every City needs a City Architect.

Without a City Architect, the administrative process gets dominated by engineers and politicans.

The Dublin City Architects were instrumental in most of the good things that happened here over the last decade.

The prior two decades saw the Road Engineers in the acendancy, they also saw the guts ripped out of the city.

Quote “anyone with talent should be building”

What if all Barristers decided to give Counsel there would be no Judiciary.

City Architect, Jim Barrett

“The City Architect’s Division provides a multi-faceted service in relation to the City Council’s development, building and urban regeneration programmes. Design briefs are formulated and agreed with client departments, sketch designs prepared and refined in consultation with technical departments and with local communities. Schemes are developed in-house, progressed to contract stage and supervised to completion. Where in-house resources are not in position to meet expanding building programmes, outside consultants are engaged to assist with meeting targets.

Multi-disciplinary teams under the guidance of the Division promote Urban Renewal through major civic works such as the Refurbishment of City Hall and by facilitating conservation and private sector projects, with notable success in the transformation of the urban centre.

In addition to the traditional housing programme, area regeneration schemes and modernisation of the City Council’s stock of flat accommodation are increasing areas of activity. Such schemes are planned and implemented in close co-operation with resident tenant associations and local community interests.”

http://www.dublincity.ie/servicesframe.html

Hard to argue with that role.

If we want to go down our president Anthony Reddy’s route of only real architects, calling themselves architects – then we will have to do a much better job of cleaning up the mess, which currently exists in how an architect goes to higher level education and qualifies as an architect in this country.

Because in the current state of affairs, my best guess is that a very large chunk of potential talent just leaks away into web design, graphic design, economics, computer science, engineering…… areas with a much wider choice of employment and future career options. Rather than face up to the five years of bitch-i-ness grand central station that seems to have embodied what our architectural education system stands for.

I think the architectural education here, can give you wonderful insights in the process of designing the built environment – which you could never get doing economics, or engineering – but it only restricts you to the straight-forward narrow project architect prospective employment routine – and to a very large extent, just working with other project architects. This never expands into other areas, relevant to the built environment, which other vocations seem more adept in handling.

A generation of Architects in Ireland, during the 1970s, 80s and 90s, like the MOLA, group 91 etc, the Jim Barretts even, may have managed to burst out of that mold in some areas – but it is still a massive gulf to cross for most.

So what do these cities have or is Dublin the only city with a stock of social housing and in need of urban renewal?

there is a city architect for galway. her name is rosie webb. there is also a county architect or several of them i think. now wether there is a need for them or not… i am not going to say on the forum but as far as i can see they just judge the bigger scheme’s and that’s it. we are doing a large project for the council and she thinks she is basically the client and project manager, but as they sold it to a private developer they are relegated to consultants no matter what she thinks.
that’s beside the point.
“……..what is a city architect then, other than an administrator……… anyone with talent should be building?”
they may have talent but there is a thinking in general here that government jobs are cushy and have gauranteed pension after you rot in the job doing bugger all for 40 years. kinda morbid but hey!

more red tape………….. maybe?”

exactly. that’s all it is. someone else who offers there opinions on a design.
i wonder are the planners in other countries obligated to undergo a few years of actual architectural training or are they geography grads like here?

i wonder are the planners in other countries obligated to undergo a few years of actual architectural training or are they geography grads like here?

I would be very tempted at this stage of my life to consider a geography/economics arts degree – it would open up that whole planning area of employment in civil service, much moreso than years spent doing architecture in our decrepit old arch institutions. Probably be a lot easier than architecture too eh? 🙂

So i just makes me wonder, how many more Joe Bloggs like myself have had to come to the same conclusions over through the years?

I think the architectural education here, can give you wonderful insights in the process of designing the built environment – which you could never get doing economics, or engineering

This is all well and good but,…… 🙁

😀

it’s not too hard to remember where places are on the atlas!!!!
i know very simplified but yeah! i wonder how many. not as much points needed and definetly not the same amount of years. although i know some of the better ones did do a course in town planning.
the question is of course… would you be happy!!!! 😀

Originally posted by alan d
Planners, eh? that’s another bone of contention.

Glasgow disolved their own architects department about 6 years ago and got rid of the title ” City Architect” the years since have seen a period or unprecedented growth in urban renewal and new design talent coming through, I think.

I am trying to pick up on that line of thinking here, that there are certainly good reasons, that engineerings, geographers and economists have suceeded in cornering the civil service appointments. While architects with huge talent, experience and drive have made precious little headway in that area down through the years.

This is why I think you need to look at it from the educational perspective – a young student looks at a Bolton Street/Queens/UCD course and says ‘f*** that’, and then sees a nicer qualification/employment prospects/course somewhere else – and at the end of the day – does just as well. Or better even.

Just look at architectural courses – you get nothing after doing three/four hard years in architecture except a gigantic boot up the you know where. And you simply cannot carry any of the benefits of that experience/training onto any other course. Talk about building yourself a nice wee lsland in the middle of the ocean….

whereas to the best of my knowledge, with a three year arts degree in economics, you can do a year course in planning in UCD and role on that Bertie civil service lov’in. 🙂

it certainly looks that way alright. it has improved greatly and credit to all there if that is what dissolving the city architect does. suppose it’s the fact that they get rid of the old timers( by this i mean what i described in previous reply) who have just one vision in regards to the style they like and find holes in everything else. it lets the architect sit down with the planner and talk through the design and convince them it’s good.! the choice of planners then is important but they tend to renew themselves after a few years ( going out and starting a consultants) .

gareth i think that the lure of private business and designing the “landmarks” is too strong to take rather than the endless paper shuffling of a civil servant job

Originally posted by FIN
gareth i think that the lure of private business and designing the “landmarks” is too strong to take rather than the endless paper shuffling of a civil servant job [/B]

I have to disagree completely, since there are people out there, who have both the skills to shuffle papers with the best of them, while also seeing where the architect, might be coming from – to a much larger degree than some economics arts graduate from UCD. 🙂

Quote “I would be very tempted at this stage of my life to consider a geography/economics arts degree – it would open up that whole planning area of employment in civil service”

You would be joining the largest group in UCD planning as an architecture grad. The second largest are property economics followed by Urban Geography.

I think that the City Architects are a necessary part of the forward planning process, particularly urban renewal planning.

City architects also provide a valuable resource to the planning departments in analysing planning applications.

Quote “the years since have seen a period or unprecedented growth in urban renewal”

Halifax (HBOS) development indicators would point to a parallel growth across all comparible sectors in the UK property industry.

I don’t know much about the UCD planning course, but I have heard precious little about it from various architects I have hung around with down through the years.

What I have heard a lot of, is the bickering and hostility shown on both sides of the planning process fence, in this country. A bit like teenager gangs scrapping down at the local disco.

What does worry me though, is the increasingly ‘isolationist’ mentality brough into the RIAI headquarters now, with the coming of the Reddy presidency – similar, in many ways to the Bush administration, contrasted to the Clinton one, in the United States of America.

Originally posted by garethace

I have to disagree completely, since there are people out there, who have both the skills to shuffle papers with the best of them, while also seeing where the architect, might be coming from – to a much larger degree than some economics arts graduate from UCD. 🙂

not what i meant. i mean that the lure of private practice and designing these instead of watching them come across ur desk. i agree with u there. there are some people that can visualize what the architect is trying to do and the more the merrier i believe, besides these number crunchers. there is also some stigma attaced to civil jobs where they are kinda seen as the low of the low on the architectural food chain.

Originally posted by alan d
Don’t know why that is really, tempted to say that architects are insular and not team players, by nature and consequently cannot play or are not interested in a political game. Not motivated only by money, either. That’s why you’ll never find them as executives or directors in city institututions.

Unfortunately, in my own personal experience of them as individuals – I would say the vast overall proportion of architects out there today, do fall into that one catagory.

I think, it has something to do with the 5-year course, and the fact, you can never take any credits/benefit from doing that course, and use it in an other area.

It seems to be a ship, you have to jump from very early, if you are not entirely satisfied with your plotted course/captain etc, etc.

Originally posted by alan d

FIN, The City Architect department in Glasgow was just another level of administration to get beyond and encouraged a job for life mentality.

absolutely. just what i was trying to say. with a nice pension afterwards as well. 😉

Originally posted by FIN
there is also some stigma attaced to civil jobs where they are kinda seen as the low of the low on the architectural food chain.

It is not that, you cannot control a civil service the same way as you can control people around you in a small architects practice.

Just look at Stephenson and Gibney – they decided they couldn’t control one another and split!

Think rock bands, the BGs, Fleetwood Mac, Robbie Williams, Divas…. 🙂

So they end up building themselves, their little fantasy islands etc.

But having said, that you cannot dispute their in-built ability to visualise, something economists, accountants, geographers etc, haven’t practiced directly as much as an architect has.

Quote “there is also some stigma attaced to civil jobs where they are kinda seen as the low of the low on the architectural food chain.”

Highly preferable to the Sealink to Holyhead in 1983. I think in fairness that the Dublin City Architects and to an equal extent Duchas architects actually do have an operational output.

Obviously in the higher profile schemes such as Ballymun they brought in private practice, but they are responsible for a large output of unseen work all the same.

There is the same attitude in all professions towards those who are chartered for private practice but settle for one (State) employer.

Then again is it any different than an accountant at PWC doing the IBM books for 25 years?

good point. i know the guy who went into the galway county architects job. and he was saying that he was there for a few years to stay quiet and then after they get to know u then u may be able to start pushing better design i regards to the planning submissions. i told him that they only way to see it quicker is to start seminars ( i was thinking small ones) where he introduces himself to different architects and underlines what his intentions are. this will increase the trust factor and then the expressions will come to the front. my good advice i fear fell on deaf ears. he wanted to fit in rather than ruffle feathers.

Originally posted by Diaspora
Highly preferable to the Sealink to Holyhead in 1983. I think in fairness that the Dublin City Architects and to an equal extent Duchas architects actually do have an operational output.

Where the shit hit the fan in Duchas, was the architects realised that ‘hey, we can start to call the shots here’, and their most destructive basic natural instinct, to control and call out orders just kicked into overdrive, as it always will.

Result: Duchas, pissed down too many peoples’ backs and self-destructed in no time.

But like I always say – Fleetwood MAC, created their best work while tearing each other’s eyeballs out, and then were no more.

Civil services inherently aim to stick around much, much longer than that.

Quote “i told him that they only way to see it quicker is to start seminars ( i was thinking small ones) where he introduces himself to different architects and underlines what his intentions are”

If every planner did that We’d all know where we stood, it should be done at the start of every development plan coming into force.

Quote “Result: Duchas, pissed down too many peoples’ backs and self-destructed in no time.”

You mean they asked for money for something other than a motorway to nowhere or a PR consultant.

I mean, that in very fine-grained complex issues to do with how they environment is made up – they simply assumed to know a lot more than they actually did – and the scary thing was – they actually seemed to have the power to affect things.

A bit like putting Goebbels in charge of the Luftwafa in WWII, despite the fact, he hadn’t got a clue about airplanes. Or Hitler deciding which tank, bomber or assault plan to use in Barbaroza – it can happen, and it was happening with Duchas. I take on board, what you say totally in favour of Duchas – but get the whole story, the real reasons about why they self-destructed, before jumping to conclusions, based on stuff that you might have heard etc.

Your organisation, An Taisce seems to have a very wide interest in all matters environmental – but doesn’t claim totally competency in any of them – An Taisce has persisted much longer than an duchas – and An Taisce will only become better and more crucial to the modernisation of the this country in thinking and execution of things.

An Duchas should have been wearing swastikas – Hitler wanted to be an architect too. It is easy to get drunk on power, and that I think, is why architects have never been attracted by the civil service – their lust for power above and beyond their stations is unstoppable, as seen in an duchas.

Still the message the are carrying is true and good, but it would be better they educated their market, instead of trying to force it to change in one almighty blitzkreig attempt. Check out a Malaysian architect called Ken Yeang – holds joint qualifications in marketing and architecture – shrewd business man, big corporate clients and a good architect to boot.

Quote “An Duchas should have been wearing swastikas.”

Nah that was Sile Develera

You are right however about multi-disciplinary environments and the need for greater specialties. Also that these specialists need to consult with each other and develop consensus prior to major decisions being taken.

The only reason I defend Duchas is because I know the only realistic alternative is ministerial dictat. Mullaghmore faced quite a bit of internal opposition in Duchas but was pushed through as part of a government policy.

Which given the current administrations desire to placate all and sundry in the run up to Junes local election scares me quite frankly.

I don’t follow politics and am reluctant therefore to get into this directly, but my sources on this are shock-proof Diaspora – do more research please and come back to me.

Like I say, educate your market first to accept the product you are selling – this is the goal of an taisce really, if you think about it.

It is more subtle than the iron-fist approach of an duchas, but eventually could swing more people. See what the Italians did to El Duce. And El Duce probably had some good messages for Italy, in terms of its prosperity – but people reacted, perhaps mistakenly and rashly too, against what they saw, as someone with too much power.

Quote “Like I say, educate your market first to accept the product you are selling – this is the goal of an taisce really, if you think about it.”

Accepted entirely.

Quote “Your organisation, An Taisce seems to have a very wide interest in all matters environmental – but doesn’t claim totally competency in any of them”

The wide range is accepted entirely, I don’t understand a lot of the finer scientific theories behind a lot of the Natural environment policies. Not because I don’t see the rational, simply because I am not a scientist. It can get extremely technical at times.

It is that range of mandate that makes An Taisce different from probably every other comparible organisation internationally.

But that says more about the NGO sector in Ireland than it does about An Taisce.

In terms of size the natural environment sector in the US is three times that of all cultural organisations including museums, orchestras etc (National Trusts are classified as Arts. Culture and Heritage)

I am not defending duchas or anyone else but simply saying that it is not a bad thing to have city architects. Not all services need to be farmed out to the private sector on ideological grounds.

Originally posted by Diaspora

I am not defending duchas or anyone else but simply saying that it is not a bad thing to have city architects. Not all services need to be farmed out to the private sector on ideological grounds.

Like LUAS thing-ies commissioned by Mrs O’ Rourke etc?

Am, just take a look at Ken Yeang and marketing – investments in marketing dollars, and subsequent ROI, are something which BMW, INtel etc have understood now for years. Intel inside ad campaign, Levis add in laundrette boosted sales 800%. BMW recent online ads by famous directors.

In architecture we have lots of small charismatic men, who are excellent at public speaking – that is great, but what about a more subtle approach?

I have this vision stuck in my head of architects, being like Hitler in that footage, where he walks up the steps of the Reichstag in 193x, without any opposition whatsoever, and simply accepted command of the nation on behalf of his brownshirts.

Architects, in their own crazed imaginations, expect things to be just like that for themselves, because they are architects, having spent 10 years qualifying.

Originally posted by FIN
😀

it’s not too hard to remember where places are on the atlas!!!!
i know very simplified but yeah! i wonder how many. not as much points needed and definetly not the same amount of years. although i know some of the better ones did do a course in town planning.
the question is of course… would you be happy!!!! 😀

Fin, I really hope you are joking!? As a geography student I feel I must defend my discipline. Firstly to presume that most planners are geographers is to genaralise. Secondly to criticise planners because you think they are from a geography background is insulting. I find it particularly suprising as in another thread you were discussing how you would advocate the use of social scientists in designing buildings. I personally think that engagement of architects with the likes of geographers would more than likely be a positive. I think the study of geography gives a good understanding of the use and interpretation of space. It is also helpful in understanding peoples attachment to place.

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?threadid=2670&perpage=15&pagenumber=3

Typical example of where geographers and architects could/should cooperate. I hope Reddy etc, might bring this issue to the fore – one of the areas I think he is particularly strong in – I still don’t like his pro-traditional isolationist stance on architects and qualification etc, though.

I can’t calculate FAR etc, not my area of expertise, but I can understand it visually.

A typical one of wilderness development, driven by having cars, and lots of home entertainment, web access etc, in the USA.

If I get any more extreme rural developments, I will post them. I think some of these may work as retreat type places, like the ancient Cistercian monastery etc, but as new residential developments…. ?

Outer Suburbia?

Some things like this, have integrated well into places like Rathgar Road etc,I think.

Perhaps not pretty in some peoples’ eyes, but definitely sustainable as development I think, on smaller available plots.

another one;

I dunno, how to calculate densities on FARs for this but, I think you get the idea.

And another attempt at density.

I think that Wright was very good at doing this sort of thing here.

Perhaps suitable for a number of smaller apartments nowadays on suitable site, circa Rathmines or similar? Certainly would be contextual anyhow.

Another kind of place,

sunnier,

Or here.

Or this.

Goind even further denser in FAR;

Similar idea.

We certainly haven’t built like this in Ireland since the times of the Eucharistic congress! I.e. The Catholic Church building private mansions on huge swats of land in urban areas.

This type of development, is attractive, as it actually manages to create a strong definition of a street I think.

As this one does;

Docklands? Notice how elements like that bridge in the background, are important perceptual landmarks in such a place.

Handsome looking attempt at very high density.

Another one.

Qoute “Like LUAS thing-ies commissioned by Mrs O’ Rourke”

As time goes on I begining to think that O’Rourke might have been a convenient person to blame when everything disintegrated.

Denied the cash by McCreevy and Breannans get out of jail free card he was after all chief whip and meant to keep her under control.

There were two main problems with the LUAS, the first being the idea to revisit what format it was to take.

The second which is much more indemic is the inability of this administration to get their contracts honoured at the prices signed.

I just can’t imaging Intel or BMW caving in like our government departments do on a daily basis.

I am not so sure about architects being autocratic, although it is a little understandable if peoples reactions are vocal when six months of their work goes down the tubes for whatever reason.

Autocratic, dunno…

isolationist yes definitely.

Like the Bush America was.

Remember Hitler eventually ended up in a bunker.

Architects need to adopt a more reaching-out approach I think:

The Bush management style embodies the pre-creative corporate era–formal, hierarchal, with decision-making concentrated in the hands of only the most senior executives. Clinton was happy in Hollywood and vacationed in Martha’s Vineyard. Bush can’t wait to get back to Crawford. Clinton reveled in the company of writers, artists, scientists, and members of the intellectual elite. Bush has little tolerance for them. Clinton, in his rhetoric and policies, wanted to bring the gifts of the creative class–high technology, a tolerant culture–to the hinterlands. Bush aimed to bring the values and economic priorities of the hinterlands to that ultimate creative center, Washington, D.C.

In fairness though, I guess Frank McDonald and Duncan Stewart together have done much to publicise architecture in a sympathetic fashion. But apart from that, the attempts have been typically ham-fisted – our architectural education setup being the most prime example of BUSH-style politics I have ever seen in my life.

Originally posted by alan d
……. I seem to be losing the thread here Lads, sorry.

Thought we were talking about the benefits or otherwise of the “City Architect” In my view they seem to be a waste of time.

What makes Archiseek useful at all, is different opinions.

Phil, I assumed you were an architect, your design assessment of Carlisle Pier seemed right on the button. Maybe Geographers and architects do have a future

Both can give a bit to the other I think.

A freind of mine graduated from DIT this year he said there were only 7 graduates in Architecture this year. Is there any reason for that or does the course incline people to drop out?

The whole wider notion of having a course called architecture in the first place – that is the big question you have to look at really. I have attempted to articulate some pluses, and some minuses. I have attempted to point out areas where geographers and architects talents might overlap and be used in concert with each other. Not, just allowing it all deteriorate into another boozy, late-night, pub DIT bashing contest, which usually is all that happens and solves very, very little.

LIke I say, there are so many more advantages and incentives to go and do anything else except a long siege-like battle against the system of architectural qualification. Getting any work as an undergraduate architect here in Dublin, is like selling the big issue sometimes. Or worse. 🙁

Sub-refugee status, something like that!

Quote “Not, just allowing it all deteriorate into another boozy, late-night, pub DIT bashing contest”

Far from it I really enjoyed my five years at DIT as college is about much more than acedemic learning. It is more about learning to teamwork with other people at 4am the morning before the group project is due up.

I was simply asking was there some procedural reason why 60 or so started studying architecture in 1998 and only 7 graduated in 2003?

If I was bashing any uni Trinity would get it, sorry phil but I am a fan of industry focused courses taught by experienced practicioners.

That said,

What deferentiates good from bad planning is the interaction between the different disciplines.

I really took to Geography at second level getting an A1 and I am an avid traveller. I have imported many of my ideas on planning from things I have seen travelling.

I would respectfully suggest that DIT drop classical music from its architectural curriculum and put a module of urban geography in its place. 😉

Quote “that in order to teach architecture and design you should have built something”

To be a senior architectural lecturer you need not necessarily have built something, but have worked in the relevant discipline for a decent period. It is the same in all professions with the exception of possibly theoretical physiscs or pure computer or earth sciences.

Practical experience for lecturers is in my humble opinion worth a lot more than acedemic learning in teaching the core subject of any professional qualification.

It is very noticable the number of architects who do architectural technician first, work for a few years and return to complete their degree.

The lecturers I have the greatest respect for were those that explained the industry to you. Those that went beyond what books or the web could tell you.

Many of the DIT lecturers were also working part time in private practice or writing reports on a private basis.

Originally posted by Diaspora

If I was bashing any uni Trinity would get it, sorry phil but I am a fan of industry focused courses taught by experienced practicioners.

That is fair enough Diaspora, but sometimes I think you should maybe just take peoples experience of space and place into account.

Garethace, I liked those examples, thanks

Quote
“Maybe Geographers and architects do have a future”
Cheers Alan, maybe we might collaborate some day!:D

Anyhow, to get back to the original thread: what about a City Geographer instead of a city architect?:D 😉

Quote “That is fair enough Diaspora, but sometimes I think you should maybe just take peoples experience of space and place into account.”

If you go to UCD or Queens and do the planning masters, you will see what I am talking about.

I wasn’t trying to have a go at TCD geography but I am of the opinion that the DIT built environment programme delivers the best format for entry into what is an industry with pretty defined roles.

I am of the opinion that those who know what they want to do at a young age choose courses such as Law, Architecture or accountancy.

If it were your intention to do planning all along fair play. Four years studying in Trinity and then your two year masters is a good way to spend six years.

Many others take a couple more years and do something open such as Arts. Therebye leaving their options open.

Diaspora, while I was doing an MA in UCD I took one of my unit courses in the Planning Department so I know, to a small extent, what you mean. I got a huge amount out of it and it opened me up to many other disciplines. I might do Planning yet, but no plans to at the moment.

Originally posted by Diaspora

Far from it I really enjoyed my five years at DIT as college is about much more than acedemic learning. It is more about learning to teamwork with other people at 4am the morning before the group project is due up.

I was simply asking was there some procedural reason why 60 or so started studying architecture in 1998 and only 7 graduated in 2003?
[/B]

No it is just to establish this point very clear and precisely from the outset – otherwise, any discussion is merely dismissed as DIT bashing by the very people would should be listening to this – i.e. Reddy and his crew.

We have to find some way to navigate ‘politically’ so to speak right around the DIT bashers, in order to achieve any sucessful debate about this subject to begin with. This is easier said than done – as most people who have made a career virtually out of DIT bashing, are fully qualified DIT members of the general population themselves.

Furthermore I think, the sucesses of the DIT system are more than evident in the breath and understanding about urban issues brought to this message board, by the both of us.

Give yourself a slap on the back and a thumbs up DIT. Anyhow, what I find educational about this message board, is how different people from a variety of courses and disiplines all seem to converge on similar issues here at something called ‘Archiseek’.

It is possible to drift through years of architecture in Bolton Street, without ever imagining that anyone else in the world except architects worry/think or have opinions about these issues.

A very sore mistake made by countless architects I think, is to only see their own little world. I enjoyed my day yesterday out at the Carlisle pier exhibition mingling and chatting with a very broad cross section of concerned and vested interests. A very fulfilling esperience I must say.

And my open-mindedness in listening/discussing things with ordinary folk out there, was in no small measure thanks to archiseek experience of doing likewise.

Originally posted by phil

Fin, I really hope you are joking!? As a geography student I feel I must defend my discipline. Firstly to presume that most planners are geographers is to genaralise. Secondly to criticise planners because you think they are from a geography background is insulting. I find it particularly suprising as in another thread you were discussing how you would advocate the use of social scientists in designing buildings. I personally think that engagement of architects with the likes of geographers would more than likely be a positive. I think the study of geography gives a good understanding of the use and interpretation of space. It is also helpful in understanding peoples attachment to place.

[/url]

i was phil…

Originally posted by Diaspora
That said,
I really took to Geography at second level getting an A1 and I am an avid traveller. I have imported many of my ideas on planning from things I have seen travelling.

It shows, in a refreshing and positive way too I might add. But most of all, you do not seem to have adopted the architects’ ‘El Duce’ extremist stance on discussion formats.

I would respectfully suggest that DIT drop classical music from its architectural curriculum and put a module of urban geography in its place. 😉

Hit the nail on the head – I know more about Leonardo da Vinci and rubbish like that – not one single classroom subject in DIT curriculum has anything even remotely to do with the built environment.

QUOTE]Originally posted by FIN

i was phil… [/QUOTE]

In that case Fin, I apologise for my rant. 🙂

Phil

Originally posted by Diaspora

It is very noticable the number of architects who do architectural technician first, work for a few years and return to complete their degree.
[/B]

Well it is my considered opinion on the matter, that this nasty aspect of architectural practice has been allowed to slip too far in the technicians favour – an architect employer will bend over backways to get a technician into his office for a couple of months in the summer – whereas a young architectural student doesn’t seem to produce anything like the same response amongst employers.

A young unqualified technician is seen as ‘an enabler’. I.e. “Architects saying, if I had a technician, I could do this, I could do that…”

Whereas a young architectural student is just viewed as a b**** and the subject of a kind of joke in the practice, if he/she does manage to make it in the door. Hence, Alan does have a strong point – to build, and put materials together you are normally talking 1:20 scale. Hence, why the young student architectural technician is seen as such as asset by an architect attempting to build something today here in Ireland.

Diaspora, Jack Coia a very important Scottish Architect of the mid twentieth century and recipient of the RIBA Gold medal once remarked that ” any c*** can build using nine materials but it takes a master to use only three”

It’s not technical expertise that I think is important but an understanding of how things go together that’s needed. That can only come with time and having built.

Yet if you look at all Dun Laoire Carlisle pier drawings – some of the best ones were drawn at 1:3000 scale. WHich is almost a geographic scale, and my question is how does one single poor f***er like a young architectural student manage to fulfill both ends of the scale?

In other words, to know how to liase with geographers at one end of the scale, and master builders at the other end. Answer – no f***ing hope. Yet I know when I do job interviews this week, they will ask me “Now, Mr. O’Hanlon, where are your 1:20 drawings?”

So it brings us right back to where we started, why does there have to be a course called Architecture in 2004 in Ireland? I.e. Not the architectural technician courses, who like to call themselves architects, to the public who don’t know any better.

that’s ok. quite understandable. my sister also studied geography. she works for the dept. of env.
sorry i replied to that before i read the rest. u asked about a city geographyer or however it’s spelt. again as i said in the other thread i would consider a consultant but a decision maker. it is just more red tape unfortunately.
i agree with alan. in general ( cos he mentioned 1 example against this) a lecturer/tutor/whatever has to have practical experience in the field. disapora. if he had even a few years in the field u would hope that he did build something as otherwise i would presume him/her to be conceptual or just plain crap. hard view i know but hey!
on the other points lads, i think that architectural students are regarded as not having the knowledge that a technician course gives someone. ie workability etc… i don’t subscribe to this view but it seems to be part of the profession. employers seem to think that they will have to train from the start the unfortunate arch student while techies will know a lot more. it’s true to a certain degree.
the drop out rate may be that the course is too long for some people. 5 years without earning is a lot. pressure is large to get a worthwhile job. etc…

I honestly do not think that experience ‘in the field’ has anything to do with it. I don’t honestly believe that most of the guys who end up tutoring in colleges, have anything at all that expressly qualifies them as suitable candidates to try and impart any knowledge or understanding to do with built environment/architecture to a young student.

In other words, I think most tutors in the colleges would be better off not trying to teach at all and just stick to practicising. The most damning problem with an architectural course of all, is the lack or confusion over any clear curriculum. Various people in the departments of architecture, have different ideas about what the curriculum actually is – and no consideration is given to the student who has to bounce ping-pong style between years of the course in architecture, with totally different emphasis, or presentation formats on one thing or another.

I will argue this to the last, architectural courses should be about teaching a body of knowledge – like any other course is – not, about relying on the whims/preferences of some jackass professor ‘with experience in the field’ who drops in now and again. Education is not an amateur walk in the park any longer – as architects have seen it – but a serious business, where much time/resources and dreams of young people are tied up in.

Many of the ‘experienced in the field’ people who you refer to, have never even contemplated, never mind grasped the magnitude or extent of the commitment made by parents and young people embarking on a course like architecture. And for that reason alone are suitable candidates for termination in my humble opinion.

Prime example, it is possible to go through the senior years of architecture, without ever doing anything except a 1:100 scale presentation of a tiny interpretive centre like building in some field in Mayo, Donegal or Kerry.

It is unusal, but nonetheless possible and I have seen it happen numerous times, depending on the site chosen for the Travelling Scholarship etc, etc. Now, where is the experience or investigation of inner city, inner suburban or outer suburban environments? Answer: nowhere.

It is highly possible to qualify as ‘an architect’ without having developed any attitude or means to deal with various environments head on. Hence, my post about geographers/architects cooperating. Hence my discust at having to remember what painting Leonardo painted in 1510, but never having been to Ballymun or the Docklands, looking at problem at 1:3000 scale for instance – to constrast with that small interpretive centre project you may have done at 1:100.

Quote “i think that architectural students are regarded as not having the knowledge that a technician course gives someone”

I think it is that technicians are regarded as having a focused knowledge that is easy to utilise.
Architecture students may be regarded as less focused in a narrow sense and there is the danger that they might expect training in more complicated areas of professional practice.

Quote “the drop out rate may be that the course is too long for some people. 5 years without earning is a lot”

The year I graduated the external examiner who met with us was shocked that none of us had done a six month placement.

Due to lack of funds I never did a summer as a skivy because I needed to work in the highest paid employment I could get, which wasn’t my core discipline unfortunately.

Originally posted by Diaspora
Architecture students may be regarded as less focused in a narrow sense and there is the danger that they might expect training in more complicated areas of professional practice.
]

Sometimes they are referred to as, “being away with the fairies”.

A sucession of bad experiences etc, has left architect employers with the firm conviction that a young architect student is really a waste of good space.

I repeat, the young architect, if lucky can sometimes progress through the entire five years, with more or less the same amount of knowledge contained within this thread:

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2730

And also, may be entirely judged based upon the excellence of his/her grasp of those ideas alone. I.e. the brief to design an interpretive centre or other such rural, small scale abomination.

On the other hand, geographers with clearly defined curriculums have to study certain issues in a systematic, organised and definite manner – the achievement of each year in their course, meaning they have attained a specific level of understanding and knowledge.

The Reddy approach to architecture, interests me, as it opens up whole new territory to architects – not facilitated by the ‘small interpretive centre approach’ to education/qualification. But it needs to be taught sufficiently well, with supporting subjects in how to calculate FAR, plot ratios etc, etc – rather than ones aimed at either calculating U-Values or remembering the paintings of Rembrandt.

The danger with the Diaspora approach, is that he/she could just be discounted as an architect, who has read a lot of books. A talented amateur, an interested party, or charismatic spokes person, like Reddy, O’Laoire etc have managed to become, whereas a geographer has a real qualification.

Perhaps if Diaspora people were given lecturships in DIT/UCD architecture departments with the purpose of introduction of students to New Urbanism, and roudabouts etc – the employment attractiveness and flexibility and open-mindedness of young graduates could be greatly increased.

Originally posted by Diaspora
“

I think it is that technicians are regarded as having a focused knowledge that is easy to utilise.
Architecture students may be regarded as less focused in a narrow sense and there is the danger that they might expect training in more complicated areas of professional practice.

very true.

Originally posted by Diaspora
“
The year I graduated the external examiner who met with us was shocked that none of us had done a six month placement.

six months!! i would have thought it was compulsory to do a year out!

Originally posted by FIN

six months!! i would have thought it was compulsory to do a year out!

A year making the coffee or doing the photocopying is still not that much better than six months doing the same, if you are a young architecture student Fin. God, the things I have done in this regard, down through the years, when only feet away from me, there was a young technician with one year in college, 7 years younger than me, drawing up a whole building!

I think, the biggest kick in the face, was the summer I lost my summer employment for not knowing how to use MicroStation! I mean, of all the unsucessful anal cavity inspections, I have had to undergo for prospective short term employment, that was the most painful. Years later, and thousands spent on the trauma counselling! 🙂 LOL!

my first day out…i was drawing up a housing estate! just gotta be lucky i suppose.

well, all I can suggest, is make the most of this online resource here when you can Fin.

Can’t do any harm anyhow – and develop your critical facility and ability in discussion etc.

well nearly 5 years at it i am soon going back hopefully!

Originally posted by FIN
well nearly 5 years at it i am soon going back hopefully!

With a much stronger critical facility perhaps? I just got to be the tech geek in an office for a while – kind of as a panic reaction to the MicroStation episode – and then went back. Talk about a road runner style nose dive of trully epic proportions.

lol. absolutely and a greater understanding of the working of the business that i wouldn’t have got from 20 years in college

True, I hope you can forge some of that benefit now, into some kind of razor-sharp intellectual tool that will allow you to carve into a new juicy college project Fin.

I know that is the proceedure, which I neglected far too much.

Quote “absolutely and a greater understanding of the working of the business that i wouldn’t have got from 20 years in college”

I agree,

You aren’t going to college for the sake of going to college when you return. You’ll be going back to find answers to a lot of the questions that are now in your head.

If general experience is anything to go by, you’ll do very well when you go back.

Originally posted by Diaspora
If general experience is anything to go by, you’ll do very well when you go back. [/B]

That is a danger indeed – since in practice it is all real sure. But in college, there are many simulated levels of reality in doing the average project submission.

I.e. Circulation of people, crowds, open space as part of the scheme, light as part of the architecture – trying to imagine these things – in an actual building, you conceive of on paper.

That is why I totally question the value of ‘experienced tutors in the field’ – as a college project is at best a place to use sharp tools of intellect to carve a very complex kind of simulation of the reality of a building on paper.

And tutors with plenty of actual ‘field experience’ can very quickly become impatient with the simulated artificiality of a college problem solving exercise, and try to impose some of the values of a real-world situation on what is really a synthetic exercise, designed only to teach a student about a specific layer or coincident layers of reality.

true but the ability to explain within the context of the real world instead of what u read is another great benefit

Quote “That is a danger indeed – since in practice it is all real sure. But in college, there are many simulated levels of reality in doing the average project submission.”

DIT stats would indicate that mature students outperform their peers significantly across a range of disciplines.

While not saying that an individual with relevant experience only has to turn up they are probably more focused than other under-graduates. They have also made a sacrifice to return to their studies.

The idea of stimulated levels is probably going to be more focused towards architecture than pints or other nocturnal endeavours.

The fact that a returnee has experience of the tech is also a major advantage as it frees up a lot of time to concentrate on the more theoretical aspects of the course which is not a luxury enjoyed by 21-23 year old under graduates who are still attempting to grasp the basics of the tech which can take years.

Real world experience also teaches one to be cynical and ask more questions.

but the ability to explain within the context of the real world instead of what u read is another great benefit

That is what I am saying, explain within the context of the real world – the idea of people circulating inside/outside/through a building – is something you can experience and observe yourself everywhere. The building or urban form happens and fits around this very real phenomena, not the other way around.

You cannot get more real than that in fact. All the Carlisle pier competition submissions explored ideas based around this. But the idea is rarely dealt with very well, by ‘the field experienced tutors’ in colleges, who normally do this unconsciously, intuitively if you will – not driving with their eyes open, but instead using the power of the force.

In college, things should I think be brought under the synthetic light of a scientific microscope – to be viewed by each and every individual in the class – like in those chemistry classes in school. Circulation can be treated like that, as can skins, openings, sense of enclosure – open public space etc, etc.

Good architects, in the field would entirely be discusted by that approach, saying it degrades what should be a poetic, mysterious process. But a poetic, mysterious attempt is not going to gain many marks in my experience.

And I am positive that Alvar Alto and Le Corbusier started off doing their architecture in a very synthetic, and not-so-poetic fashion. Just look at that domino house lproject by Le Corbusier if you don’t believe me – an exercise in synthetic analysis if ever there was one – showing peoples’ circulation and therefore experience of an architectural reality, like you would put it under a microscope for analysis.

O’Donnell and Tuomey Irish Pavillion similarly.

Yet, this synthetic rule or intellectual construct model, became a very real and poetic one, in villa savoie and other projects much later on. In order to break with the traditional form of buildings, he was forced to become a bit of a synthetic nerd for a while. The classical Beaux Arts thugs and ‘quarter backs’ probably even jeered at the young, spotty Le Corbusier starting out in Paris of the 1920s.

You might even argue, that the Villa Savoie, still holds some of this early synthetic nerdiness, but if you look at the SOM entry for Dun Laoire Carlisle pier, it shows that the villa savoie concept about architecture has indeed matured down through the years, and become something very real and very useful too.

In short what begun with almost Lab-like analysis of reality, by one rebelious amateur architectural tweaker, has become the main business of architectural super power industries like the Skidmore, Owenings and Merrill of this world – the equivalent in scale of Intel in the chip world.

Le Corbusier could see in 1920s, that buildings would become places where massive crowds of well-to-do middle classes would come to visit on weekends etc. Therefore he chose to look to things like huge Atlantic liners etc, and learn how they used decks, etc, to cope with crowds of people.

The old Beaux Arts design, simple wasn’t able to cut the mustard anymore. 🙂 That is what the SOM entry for carlisle pier proves to me now today. That a semi-beached ocean liner, can in fact, become quite a decent piece of commercial architecture. And it has been a long, long, long day since Le Corbusier first iterated those words in Ver une Architecture.

Advising the young prospective architect to look at those huge big ships in the harbour, to study how they work, and are governed by efficiency not old formulaic rubbish like Beaux Arts architectural training.

Quote “That is what I am saying, explain within the context of the real world – the idea of people circulating inside/outside/through a building – is something you can experience and observe yourself everywhere. The building or urban form happens and fits around this very real phenomena, not the other way around.”

That to me would be sufficient reason for the existence of City Architects.

Specialisation is in my opinion a natural process of society filtering particular human qualities amd directing them to the area that suits them best.

An architect could have a perfect grasp of how other peoples buildings and building styles work in different urban settings but not be great designers on a micro level.

Conversely some designers can create amazing buildings visually and in terms of usability once the initial scoping exercise has been completed, but not have the intuition where to best site their creations.

That is why I am a little disapointed that there has been so little discussion on the Carlisle pier thread.

Originally posted by Diaspora
That to me would be sufficient reason for the existence of City Architects.[/B]

Can you even imagine a geographer having done 4 years in Trinity and 2 years planning elsewhere, being asking to look at the Carlisle pier entries from a point of view of villa savoie. 🙂 Not even my very vivid imagination would care to stretch quite that far. However, I still believe, that when it comes to calculating plot ratios and really putting wheels into motion, in searching for sustainable forms of high density development, then we have no other choice as architects than to work hand in hand with those other disiplines.

Personally, I spent years getting tutition in Bolton Street in how to see the building as stresses and strains, materials and construction realities. Whereas, it wasn’t until I began to discover it was the people moving, circulating and moving inside/outside/through a building, which actually define the architecture – not the actual physical building itself. That is, what I mean about simulated realities. You cannot prove that people circulate in your building, the same way as you can quantify and discuss the compressive strength of materials and jointing systems etc. But for my money, the circulation is will have much more of an impact on the architect’s end of the design than the structure.

You cannot compile a module of course material on pedestrian circulation, and get someone to lecture it, as easy as you can ask the engineering department to provide one of their guys to do a class in stresses and strains etc. Yet as a profession we have to try and do a better job in the education side of things. But I can see how educational establishments, might prefer to take the service industry route and just order in take-away support lecturing course material – in the form of civ studies, law studies, U-values, stresses and strains, design tech, …. just because we have become either too tired, fed up or god damn too bone lazy to compile our own relevant course material.

That is what you get in DIT anyhow – the bread and water diet of architectural training. But hardly enough to sustain oneself as a really top designer. I have no doubt, that is why technician can just breeze through the course too.

That is why I am a little disapointed that there has been so little discussion on the Carlisle pier thread

I nearly have my report of the exhibition completed, will post it soon as I can. Consider the above a preview, and as you have already pointed out, makes a very valid point, in the city geographer/city architect debate right here.

But still, you will probably find even more and better discussion about the Carlisle pier, than you ever will on the mandatory two page spread in the Irish Architect, mostly showing pictures, the ten second RTE news slot, or the column Frank will now doubt pen in the Irish Times on Thursday.

Frank is just another example of a non-architect trained person, who has done his absolutely utmost to understand the built environment, but again, underlines, that advantage of having dedicated professionals who have gone to DIT/UCD and done the long haul. I am waiting to see what Frank will do in the Times, but I can assure you, my Carlisle report will whip nine colours of s*** our of his, any day of the week.

Originally posted by alan d
unequivocal Diaspora……as usual

Cities without City Architect:

Barcelona, Rotterdam, Paris, Berlin, Oporto, Manchester, London, New York, Tokyo, Sydney, Chicago, Glasgow, Copenhagen, Madrid, Rome, Toronto, Lyon, Stuttgart, Athens, Rio…………….

A good exampleof where geographers and architects might combine?

Normally this kind of density is reserved for bad hotel developments here in Ireland. Which american firms of architects designed and had fine tuned down to the very last quarter of an inch. A quarter of an inch over size = less profit in other words.

But why do cities like paris, berlin, barcelona, amsterdam, london, helsinki etc manage these densities and we never can?

The sort of thing which drove Temle Bar development style.

Which, I believe was new at the time here in Ireland. What I mean was, the market demanded something like that at the time, and the cooperation of all disiplines noticed this and acted together at the right time.

Quote “Can you even imagine a geographer having done 4 years in Trinity and 2 years planning elsewhere, being asking to look at the Carlisle pier entries from a point of view of villa savoie”

Yes they are better travelled than most groups and only someone with an interest in architecture would take on Town Planning. No planning course brochure tells you about the boring stuff like plot ratios, coverage and other yardsticks that takes the fun out of the process. Instead many trained in future planning end up adjudicating their lives away

Quote “it wasn’t until I began to discover it was the people moving, circulating and moving inside/outside/through a building, which actually define the architecture – “

That unfortunate reality can only be solved by more overseas lectures on class breaks to places such as Barcelona and Milan where those theories can be explained graphically and I think that students are far more receptive to new ideas when away from the college and the usual student politics.

Quote “you will probably find even more and better discussion about the Carlisle pier, than you ever will on the mandatory two page spread in the Irish Architect, mostly showing pictures, the ten second RTE news slot,”

I agree absolutely, but I suppose space is the over-riding concern with main stream media and if they don’t use most of it with the pictures the public don’t see anything they can really relate to. Thanks Paul Archeire/seek is a pleasure. 😀

That unfortunate reality can only be solved by more overseas lectures on class breaks to places such as Barcelona and Milan where those theories can be explained graphically and I think that students are far more receptive to new ideas when away from the college and the usual student politics.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. . . I totally disagree with you. It is high time we woke ourselves up in this country to some basic realities, and called a spade, a spade. Rather than this ‘lets rear our young purely on a diet of broken biscuits’ kind of formula. So maybe just allow me to just encapsulate the situation for you.

The unfortunate result of the above point of view, is that many architectural students may have walked around more of Barcelona, Amsterdam and Paris, than they have done of their own city here in Dublin. With no motivation or hunger to try and explore the cities we live/use here in Ireland. Or even try to imagine how they could be improved. Hence, I think why geographers have always managed to win the key positions in planning departments etc – literally because architects show no interest in those areas.

This treatment of our own city as unsuitable for study, is a major stumbling block in my opinion. With the said temptation as I have already pointed out, to treat architecture school just as a place to design 1:100 scale flash presentations of an interpretive centre somewhere on the coast of Mayo or the Aran Islands. Then draw a detailed section of it at 1:20 and almost mandatory 3DS VIZ render. What else can you do, without adequate quality, intensive supporting lecture content in geography, architectural concepts and urbanism?

I mean, I listed out the ‘take-away’ attitude to supporting subjects in DIT. It was the equivalent of parents saying to their kids, here is a fiver, I am going to the pub and am too lazy to make any dinner, so go around the corner to the chipper instead.

In fact, if you ripped out the guts of the DIT course and examined it, you would probably find that less than 10% of the ‘taught’ course material was compiled for architects, by architects. That was the price the course really had to pay, for tying itself far too closely to an institution full of carpenters, plumbers and decorators such as Bolton Street.

Yeah, the argument promoted by the Department heads down through the years, has been ‘that architects have a broad education’. But after a while you can begin to believe your own marketing bullshit a bit too much. In a similar way, to what DIT uses on its brochures, “Dublin city is our campus”. An abomination most likely created by some overpaid PR consultant 20 years ago, and we are all still stuck with.

The truth of the matter, is that DIT just managed to cobble together an architectural course content out of virtually nothing, in very hard times, and that same said course content still had the advantage it happened to be just ‘good enough’ for youngsters taking the boat to England back in the 1980s. But don’t try and sell all of that, to anyone with any intelligence, as ‘architects have a broad education’. Since it is like saying that kids who live on chips and burgers have a high nutritional diet.

Architects needed to be technologists, was certainly promoted by the ‘I can get a job in London anytime I want’ crew so powerful in DIT all through the 1980s and early 1990s – the big rugby club type that is who owned the very first mobile phones. In fairness to the architectural education system here, it was mainly facing itself toward Holyhead, for the past quarter of a century. You have to give it that – in a kind of five nations/the roar of landsdowne road, nine kegs of porter consumption kind of way.

It is a new day now and it is high time we re-visit that. It is more like lattes and cappucinos now, instead of porter. But that idea of Holyhead in architectural education, the smell of stale Guinness, still has managed to linger on, possibly for the sake of the few cronies still left in BS, clinging onto the memories of the emigration era. “We’ll change it when they are gone, kind of approach”. Despite the fact, that the playing pitch has changed utterly – now I am competing here in Ireland against Italians, French and Germans for the said architectural jobs – and getting my arse booted into oblivion too I might add.

It is Italians, French and Germans, not to mention Fins, British, Spanish and god knows how many Poles or South Africans who are designing the future reality of Ireland’s built environment. It is like the world cup for architects out there – except the Irish are the only ones who didn’t manage to qualify. Did anyone even tell DIT there is a Tournament? Not to mind, being at the ball park.

DIT architecture course in Bolton Street still to a massive extent, awaits it’s Jack Charlton, “We’ll put ’em under pressure”. Just crank out them funky ‘The Edge on electric guitar’ rifts man! And bring on those big green inflatable shamrocks!

How many entries by established Irish practices were there for the Carlisle Pier competition? I don’t even mean winning entries, just a spirited challenge might even do. You would imagine, that of all the old nags we have quietly munching away through bags of oates in stables, we could at least have put out one good horse for the race. Imagine it has taken a two person firm from New York city, to come back here to make us wake up even slightly. Thankyou H/P for the Carlisle pier entry!

Brian O’ Hanlon.

BTW, I should qualify the above long statement perhaps, to include the argument – that for any society to produce good architecture and notable architectural talents – there should first of all be a respect and appreciation of such values by the wider society, clients and patronage in general.

So while much of the above may be aimed directly at a system of education – the very same accusations could also be leveled at our urban property developers etc, etc, etc, etc. Which of course, brings in the notion of marketing and architecture again – for one of the basic rules about marketing, is to educate your prospective market first.

That certainly must become a duty of the architectural profession from now on I think. And perhaps it is time for highly professional dedicated marketing of the architect and the services provided. Considering I have studied architecture for so long, and it has taken me so long, to understand basic realities about good architecture, how are the mass public supposed to understand anything?

And in that sense, as a profession I think we have been incredibly naive and even ‘un-professional’ or to put it even more bluntly ‘amateur’. Sort of like a collection of warm hearted, well meaning concerned buffunes, rather than cold, calculating professionals.

So perhaps more air miles are necessary, but I still don’t want to actually abstain Irish architects in general, from the responsibility to ‘get out into the cold and the elements’ from time to time, away from the comfort of a drawing board, computer screen and office – to actually investigate what problems/challenges there are facing the built environment here in this country of ours alone.

I mean, that is really what I wished to underline here, and here. Or even here.

Brian O’ Hanlon.

Don’t know if Galway ever got it’s City Architect.

Westport about 5,500 pop has had it’s own Town Architect for years. He has an input into every planning application, and in particular pre-planning meetings.

Town looks well.