industrial revolution in architecture
- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 7 months ago by Anonymous.
October 20, 2008 at 4:00 am #710211AnonymousInactive
I’ve just been thinking about this for a little while and thought i’d put it on the board to see if anyone has an interest, I’m by no means an expert but this thread is intended to be explorative, so fire away with any comments or opinions you may have 🙂
As far as I can see Architecture is based on the sale and supply of bespoke goods, ranging from design only or project managing only to the full concept-to-completion package. although an entirely different discipline the process isn’t a million miles away from comissioning a bespoke suit from a tailor or chair from a carpenter. Architects work very long hours and while the work is rewarding, the pay to hours worked ratio is poor.
but the big difference between our profession (architecture) and other bespoke industries is that architecture in most cases has direct impact on the greater population, not just the patron. it seems to me that architecture (and urbanism, town planning) is one of the most potent shapers of our day-to-day experience of life. the status of architecture as environment creators doesn’t seem to fit with its bespoke nature.
while city councils do involve themselves in urbanism and town planning, it seems great estates of houses have sprung up constantly without shops, hospitals or public transport to cater for their needs, and often the design of these estates are such that there can be no re-use of them if and when the city envelops them.
I was thinking, what if architecture was introduced as a subject in secondary school for the first three years? and what if every new building was obliged by law to be ‘architect designed’? mad, maybe, but 80% of the world are living in cities, and cities are the product of architecture (et al). by introducing architecture (not ‘appreciation of’ but ‘fundementals and theory of’) to the school curriculum you would vastly cut down on the trash produced, and increase the common knowledge of the places we live, appropriate in the modern city-based world.
obviously the cost to build a house couldn’t be allowed to rise, but the way i see it architect’s fees could reduce, balanced by the increased amount of work available. the equivalent in the ‘bespoke suit from a tailor’ example above is the industrial revolution, high street stores selling ‘better than diy’ at low prices, with various levels of quality according to budget. while architecture would remain bespoke at the high end, the void between DIY and Saville Row would be filled with tiers of architectural input, leading to more efficient, clean and functional buildings and urban realm.
just a thought. interested to hear if you agree or you think i’m full of it!
December 3, 2008 at 7:28 pm #804298AnonymousInactive
I was thinking, what if architecture was introduced as a subject in secondary school for the first three years? . . . by introducing architecture (not ‘appreciation of’ but ‘fundementals and theory of’) to the school curriculum you would vastly cut down on the trash produced, and increase the common knowledge of the places we live, appropriate in the modern city-based world.
I like that idea, we had ‘Civics’, which was a very welcome, semi-official, doss period as far as I could tell. In my day, we were handed round copies of some Dublin Corporation newsletter for schools, possibly for reading, or more likely for making paper aeroplanes out of.
One week, the feature was on Dublin’s new ‘Civic Offices’, which was treated to the kind of glowing architectural citation that would make even Shane O’Toole blush.
I distinctly remember keeping that copy, because even at age 13, or whatever, I knew I was reading bullshit. I know it’s here somewhere, if I can find it I might post it up on the Architecture (in words) thread.
As far as I know ‘Civics’ is now C.S.P.E. which lets face it, could easily accommodate another letter!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.