Architects or students architecture

[Chartsengrafs 0]

I recently graduated with a degree in town and country planning, so I'd be happy to try to answer any questions anyone may have, whether you are considering studying planning, or just have questions about planning matters in general.

[MrVegetable 2]

I'm gonna also study for a degree in architecture or Planning when I go to Uni in a few years time!

[fosterk 4]

I want to go into architecture, I know I'm only 14, so there's still a lot to do, but I'm good at art, Design Technology, IT (especially that 3D Modelling bit ), Maths, and finally, Physics.

Those all seem to be pretty much architeture related subjects, so yeah, I think I've got a good chance!

Another thing that'd be cool would be game design... (Though you can bet it won't be for EA!)

[Compromise 1]

I have been recommended to join the planning office. You will have to go througth me first before you can build any of your mad structures.

[Motina 77]

Date: 7/17/2005 6:04:28 AM Author: Kwakelaar Architects are not artists. Art is made for its own sake, architecture is made for a purpose. This is ofcoures an opinion, and not the universal truth.

quote>

But that is the thing. Ghery and Lebeskind look at architecture as art. They use feeling instead of thought or a plurality of the two.

 

Getting back to the other post..

 

They both hit it big after a certain project, and then they go around accepting large named projects (The Art Gallery of Ontario, and Royal Ontario Museum in the case of Toronto). The AGO not being a big income producer hires Ghery because he is Frank O'Ghery. I do have to give it up for Ghery though; he did trim it down despite still containing questionable design features that serve no purpose. As for the ROM, The Diamond that neither looks like a diamond or structurally sound as a diamond. Daniel Lebeskind and Zaha Hadid are both criticized for creating structurally unsound buildings and have been sued quite a few times.

[Chartsengrafs 0]

Date: 7/17/2005 2:23:17 PM Author: Motina

Date: 7/17/2005 6:04:28 AM Author: Kwakelaar Architects are not artists. Art is made for its own sake, architecture is made for a purpose. This is ofcoures an opinion, and not the universal truth.

But that is the thing. Ghery and Lebeskind look at architecture as art. They use feeling instead of thought or a plurality of the two.

 

Getting back to the other post..

 

They both hit it big after a certain project, and then they go around accepting large named projects (The Art Gallery of Ontario, and Royal Ontario Museum in the case of Toronto). The AGO not being a big income producer hires Ghery because he is Frank O'Ghery. I do have to give it up for Ghery though; he did trim it down despite still containing questionable design features that serve no purpose. As for the ROM, The Diamond that neither looks like a diamond or structurally sound as a diamond. Daniel Lebeskind and Zaha Hadid are both criticized for creating structurally unsound buildings and have been sued quite a few times.

 

This is a really interesting debate!

 

I personally don't think that Libeskind and Gehry have 'sold out', they've simply achieved a status that is uncommon for architects, because they come up with such daring designs.  I also believe that they are intuitive designers, and treat their architecture more like an expressionist artform, rather than a technical solution to a problem.  If that leads to structurally unsound buildings, then it is more than likely down to structural engineers, rather than the architect.  Certainly, I don't know who has the final say in such a situation, but if a design cannot be made structurally sound, the engineer should be sure to let the architect know that that is the case.  I also find it odd that design features that serve no purpose should be criticised, when many older buildings are heavy with decoration that serves no practical function.

 

I noticed that the plans for the World Trade Centre site were criticised on the previous page.  I wondered if everyone is aware that Larry Silverstein (the owner of the site),  appointed his own architect to work with Daniel Libeskind?  I don't know what the most up-to-date situation is, but Silverstein has in the past claimed that he has the right to rebuild how he sees fit, and had unfortunately managed to use a variety of tactics and bullying to give his architect creative control over the project.  Last I heard, he had even managed to get the Mayor and State Governor on his side.  Silverstein initially had the plans revised, because Libeskind's design did not feature enough commercial floorspace and would not be as profitable as he would like.  (This from a man who is already a multi-millionnare, if not billionnare, and stands to gain (or has already gained) a further 3.5-7 billion in insurance claims).  The plans have since been revised again, to create 'safer' buildings, that are less susceptible to attack or fire, however this has meant that Libeskind's initial plans are so watered-down that they are unrecogniseable.  I saw a photograph just recently of the latest plans being unveiled, and noticed that Daniel Libeskind stood apart from the others...  Anyway, it appears to me that the new development will be more of a monument to greed than a monument to the people who died on September 11th, 2001.   

[annoyingdan 42]

I'm planning to go into the field of architecture (I'm only 14). I've been drawing and designing (mostly doodles) buildings since I was around 11. Next (or I guess you could say this school year) school year I'm starting to take classes to help my knowlege of architecture and drafting.

[DuskTrooper 314]

^^ Exactly.

And once again, everything done by those architects seem the same. Take Gehry's Bilbao Museao, the Walt Disney music hall, as welkl as part of the Chicago Millenium Park. All of them use the same curved metal elements, which was great at first, but, is now becoming cliched. Then, he is hired by other firms, just because he is Gehry, and then, you know the results.

Now Libeskind's design habits involve the usage of crystalline forms, and many angles, which is becoming overused (especially in the WTC plans, where several of the buildings are nearly the same; the only main difference is the heights of the structures). Also, I agree that Libeskind, and the people whp are in charge of the new WTC project are making the project a symbol of greed, and super-egotism.

[Chartsengrafs 0]

Date: 7/17/2005 3:30:10 PM Author: DuskTrooper ^^ Exactly. And once again, everything done by those architects seem the same. Take Gehry's Bilbao Museao, the Walt Disney music hall, as welkl as part of the Chicago Millenium Park. All of them use the same curved metal elements, which was great at first, but, is now becoming cliched. Then, he is hired by other firms, just because he is Gehry, and then, you know the results.

Now Libeskind's design habits involve the usage of crystalline forms, and many angles, which is becoming overused (especially in the WTC plans, where several of the buildings are nearly the same; the only main difference is the heights of the structures). Also, I agree that Libeskind, and the people whp are in charge of the new WTC project are making the project a symbol of greed, and super-egotism.

quote>

 

I take it that you're agreeing with the others on Gehry and Libeskind then!?    The thing that has to be kept in mind is that every architect has their style - a sort of signature, so certain themes or forms will likely recur in their designs.

 

I feel I should stress that Libeskind is an innocent party in the watering-down of the WTC plans.  The guy is determined not to be pushed out of the project, but creative control over the design was wrestled from him by Larry Silverstein and his people.  Unfortunately, it's the usual story, and nothing has been done to rectify the situation, probably because no-one is bothered enough.   

[Kwakelaar 92]

Motina
I think all design and also architecture is fed by feeling and intuition, and in my opinion that is a good thing, but both Gehry and Libeskind when building a museum have to make a building where the exhibition can take place, and therefor have to take that into account when making a design.
You probably say they are selling out because they have made some smaller edifices that did not really need to conform to any specific function or clients needs, but now that they have to deliver work as architects they also need to think about other things than just the shape of the object.

They indeed did hit it big after a certain project, as you say, but architecture is not based on idealism but is a profession were you get paid (or al least should get paid) for the work you do. Why should they not accept large named projects, they will also need to earn money to keep on working and living.
And if someone would say; I love your projects please make one for me aswell, is it then selling out to accept such a commission?


Chartsengrafs
I most say I do not know what exactly is happening with the design for the WTC, it is such a colossal and prestiges project so I can imagine that some compromisses are being made.


DuskTrooper
What exactly? Chartsengrafs just said he does not think they have sold out.
Yes, I do agree with you that Gehry is using the same elements for more than one building but I still would not say that it has become cliched, that is more for the people that would try to copy his style without the idea behind it.

Then, he is hired by other firms, just because he is Gehry, and then, you know the results.
Sorry, I don't know the results. I would think this is what happens quite often with architects, that people see a building you have designed, like it and then ask you to design a building for them aswell

Also Libeskind has a distinct choice of shapes, but making to many different shaped buildings for the WTC-site would probably make it a rather confusing project. I think there is enough variations within the plan.
I still like his work and do not think it has become to repetitive.
Futher I have not been following the discussion about the WTC in the press concerning greed etc.

To all
I think it is quite obvious that we are not going to agree on selling out or not, which I really don't mind.
A discussion about art and design (architecture) I find very interesting.
To me architecture has to take function into account but I am not at all a supporter of functionalism. I think that was a crime against humanity. The idea of form follows function is ofcourse very appealing, but the result of this idea in buildings and city planning I find too often to be monstrous.

Edit
Chartsengrafs you posted your reply while I was writing mine, sorry about that.

[Motina 77]

Motina I think all design and also architecture is fed by feeling and intuition, and in my opinion that is a good thing, but both Gehry and Libeskind when building a museum have to make a building where the exhibition can take place, and therefor have to take that into account when making a design.

Then we agree, as I said their needs to be a plurality.

Author: Kwakelaar

You probably say they are selling out because they have made some smaller edifices that did not really need to conform to any specific function or clients needs, but now that they have to deliver work as architects they also need to think about other things than just the shape of the object.

Of course, I am sure they are adept at that as any other Architect

Author: Kwakelaar

They indeed did 'hit it big' after a certain project, as you say, but architecture is not based on idealism but is a profession were you get paid (or al least should get paid) {And if this is your number one reason - the money and fame - then you are selling yourself out} for the work you do. Why should they not accept large named projects, they will also need to earn money to keep on working and living. And if someone would say; I love your projects please make one for me aswell, is it then selling out to accept such a commission?

Most large named projects are set up through competitions. However, to base a design (that contains many wasteful uses of materials) on ones feelings is selfish and not respecting the client. I have heard that Gehry would leave a project if he lost any control in a project, Libeskind is upset of the changes with the WTC. Their buildings are a reflection of themselves.

Question: Do Gehry and Libeskind claim to be deconstructivists?

Author: Kwakelaar

To all I think it is quite obvious that we are not going to agree on selling out or not, which I really don't mind. A discussion about art and design (architecture) I find very interesting. To me architecture has to take function into account but I am not at all a supporter of functionalism. I think that was a crime against humanity. The idea of form follows function is ofcourse very appealing, but the result of this idea in buildings and city planning I find too often to be monstrous.

But form has followed function since the beginning of architecture. Everything you see about Victorian homes/buildings is functional. Louis Sullivan and his organic like architecture is merely a look into nature itself. How is it a crime against humanity.. unless you only look at the Modernists. I find Modernists lacking in diversity, it became a dogma of sort. How can we have Post-Modernism? Post Modernism has become the true Modernism. It grows and evolves, nothing is more diverse or unlimited as Post-Modernism.

[Kwakelaar 92]

Motina
Giving up one's integrity to obtain money and fame, would be selling out, but I cannot see that Gehry or Libeskind, are doing so.
I have heard that Gehry would leave a project if he lost any control in a project, Libeskind is upset of the changes with the WTC. Their buildings are a reflection of themselves. If they didn't care I would say they are selling out. They would get paid and then shut up.

But form has followed function since the beginning of architecture. Yes, I would agree with you about that.

Everything you see about Victorian homes/buildings is functional I don't agree with you here. Take any Victorian public building and it will have lots of decorations that was all taken away with functionalism. A 19th century trainstation could from the outside look more like a gothic cityhall, a country house or a cottage whatever, depending on the size and the chosen style of the architect. They borrowed from the past to find a solution to a new building with a new function that did not excist before that time. They had the need to add to a building rather than to bring it back to its bare necessities.
Their buildings are maybe functional but it is not functionalism.

How is it a crime against humanity.. unless you only look at the Modernists. I find Modernists lacking in diversity, it became a dogma of sort. I think it is a crime against humanity, because feelings and intuition are supposedly taken out of the design process. Through logic you should come to the solution of any given design problem. Design will always be connected with the designer, true objectivity and therefor functionalism is not possible.
The masters of the style of functionalism could make beautiful buildings. But functionalism performed by every designer is like taking away the beauty in life.
The modernist movment - I agree with you, I find the two are often connected.

Post Modernism has become the true Modernism. I don't understand what you mean with this.
I also support and enjoy the diversity that has come about the last decades within architecture.

Edit This thread is probably not where we should continue this discussion. So Motina if you do reply maybe you should open up a new thread?

[6459978. 106]

Interesting discussions here!

With regards to Frank Gehry, I'd just like to add an interesting little tidbit. The design for the new Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO) in Toronto actually does not contain many Gehry cliches (i.e. the Guggenheim style metal walls, etc.) Perhaps this is because there was no budget for it, or maybe he wished to express something a little deeper than cliche in a project that would be situated in the same neighbourhood where he grew up.

I actually saw Frank Gehry give a presentation when they released the plans for the AGO, in which he spoke of his history as well as the new project. He showed many slides of concepts for the AGO that did look Guggenheim-esque, however he bluntly stated that he didn't like them because they were (--his words, not mine--) extemporaneous bull****.

In an interesting side note, I can honestly say that Frank Gehry followed in my footsteps ...

...(An explanation is in order, hehe---) On the night of the presentation, as I was entering the auditorium where the lecture was to be given, the Frank O. Gehry walked through the doors not 2 metres away from me and followed directly behind me down the escalator. I actually overheard him say to the person who was accompanying him Should I just follow these people here? Thus, he followed in my footsteps . Unfortunately I was too embarassed to ask for an autograph or a picture; that would have taken the cake....

 

On a side note; regarding the architecture/structural engineering debate....

 

I've always loved buildings. As a kid instead of drawing animals and people and whatnot, I would draw cityscapes. SimCity was a godsend for me, and it's still my favourite passtime in some form or another. So, in grade 6, after doing a very extensive project on architecture and its history, I decided I unequivocably wanted to become an architect.

The great equivocation came when I was in grade 11.

My parents both being engineers, they decided to sign me up for an engineering after school mini-course at the University of Toronto. The topic was structural engineering. In the course we learned a fair bit of statics, and the culminating project was building a popsicle-stick bridge. I was hooked.

I've always excelled at maths and sciences (although I daresay I'm pretty good at art too ), so, in grade 12, taking the attitude that I didn't want to waste my intellect, I applied for the Engineering Science program at the University of Toronto. I can't say it was a mistake. Despite the gruelling workload, I really loved everything I learned in first year. Hopefully the next 3 will be just as interesting.

Now, I still maintain that someday in the future I will be an architect, but I want a solid background in structural engineering first. I'm currently working on a research project for the summer that involves the computer modelling of concrete beams (which is not as easy as you might think!) and from my point of view it's the ideal job.... So who knows, perhaps I'll become a professor in civ. eng. one day...

 

The only thing about engineering that I find disheartening is the lack of respect it garners in North American society. I firmly believe that engineering is the most noble profession on the planet , but the common public doesn't share my view. The Italians have it right, though; they honour engineers more than lawyers and doctors (and they are paid accordingly)... But, sigh, while I could have become a doctor or a lawyer, I chose the road less travelled because I truly have a passion for concrete.

[Kwakelaar 92]

I am always very impressed by people who know their way around maths, and it seems you even enjoy it. Hope you succede in your goals. And yes it is certainly a very nobel profession.

[Motina 77]

Date: 7/18/2005 5:40:56 AM Author: Kwakelaar

Motina Giving up one's integrity to obtain money and fame, would be selling out, but I cannot see that Gehry or Libeskind, are doing so. I have heard that Gehry would leave a project if he lost any control in a project, Libeskind is upset of the changes with the WTC. Their buildings are a reflection of themselves. If they didn't care I would say they are selling out. They would get paid and then shut up.

But that is merely half of the meaning according to text book definition (Infact not even half). To increase mass appeal or acceptability would also be selling out

 

The rest I will post in a new discussion called Modernism and the Argument of Form follows Function.

[kmoh4346 2]

Hey everyone, I am doing my Bachelor of Civil Engineering, (Structural) in The University of Sydney, Australia. Currently I am in my 4th year and I have 1/2 year to go to finish my Thesis (Derivation of Finite Element for frame & Composite beam analysis accounting for time effects).

reading a few post and among those I agree was what said by joe: architecture is generally artistic, and engineering is generally technical.

 

I really want to know what other people learn about in their uni... sort  of subjects.. eg finite elements, !!! anyway.. I'll keep an eye on this thread! wish the topic is Architects + Engineers!! no point opening up too many topics!!!

[SockoJr53 51]

I'm about to start my first year at Rensselear Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in upstate New York. I'm going for civil engineering. I was looking at architecture, but it's just a bit too artsy, and I'm a man of numbers.

[wolverine 12]

I'm a third year architecture student at the University of Michigan.

[mikeyb66 30]

After finding out that I posted in this thread over a year ago I thought I would post an update. I did get into Bath University to study architecture. It is a 6 year thin sandwich course and it rocks. I'm on summer vacation and can't wait to get back.

For those of you in the UK here's a brief run down on 3 courses:

Bath University: 6 year thin sandwich, in the 2nd, 3rd and 5th years you have 3 month placements which allow you to get out in to a practice and get some real experience and earn some money. It is also quite closely tied in with the civil engineers. Year 1 Semester 1 is joint taught and there are some joint projects throught out the course.
Qualifications earned: BSc General Architectural Studies, MArch Masters of Architecture

University of West of England (UWE), Bristol: 6 years full time, however you also study Town and Country Planning. Still a fairly new department. It's good if you are intersted in planning.
Qualifications earned: BSc General Architectural Studies, BSc, Town and Country Planning, MArch Masters of Architecture

Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University: 5 years full time course. This is the more traditional type of course, a 3 year degree and 5 year masters.
Qualifications earned: BSc General Architectural Studies, MArch Masters of Architecture

Hopefully this gives a bit of an insight into the different types of course. I've tried to be accurate with information but its been two years since I decided where to go.

As to whether you should do a degree in architecture then the main bit of advice I can give you is:
Do it for the love of architecture and not the love of money.

Sure you won't be poor being an architect but don't go into it just to get a good salary you really have to love what you're doing and if you do then you'll have excellent job satisfaction despite the hard work and late nights.

As for another 'horror' story over the last five days of my final project I averaged about 20 hours a day working on my project to get it finished (and about 10 hours a day over the 7 week project). But I got a B so I was very happy.

Hope this advice has been useful.

[Mr. Beer 12]

I study architecture at the Ingineers and Architecture School of Geneva, I'll began my second year...

[mikeyb66 30]

In reply to an earlier post here is a list of the different modules I studied last year.

History and Theory of Architecture: As the title says.
History and Theory of Civil Engineering: Covered topics such as bridges, earthquake-proofing, natural building materials.
Built Environment: A study of making buildings eco-friendly and things such as solar gain, heating, sound insulation and other forms of insulation.
Construction: We had to correctly draw a 'working drawing' which lists all the dimensions and names of all the elements of the building.
Structures: Very engineering based, learning about moments, sheer forces and the such.
Design Studio: This is the module which consists of all of your design work. Projects included: a masonary house, timber house, timber covered market and a couple of others.

In later years there are other modules such as:
Enviroment: Considering enviromental impacts
Law and management: An architect is often the project manager too and you need to learn all the rules and regulations.
Urban Studies (i think)

So there's a bit of an insight into what you'll be studying (if you go to Bath U anyway)

[keiferkapper 0]

I majored in Urban Planning during my freshman year at Cal Poly Pomona but ended up graduating with a B.A. in a completely different major and now work as a longshoreman.  Go figure. 

[Gnargenox 6]

Began my college career in Environmental Design at the College of Architectute, Texas A&M University, switched to Urban and regional planning, then to Parks, Rec & Tourism and finished up with Landscape Architecture. (4 degrees and i mow lawns for a living)

Designers just have something in thier blood that makes playing a game like this so ADDICTIVE!

[organicsabre 1]

Date: 7/29/2004 4:52:57 AM
Author: Joe 90
Boris, I finished an honours degree in Civil Engineering 8 months ago so perhaps I could help shed some light on the Architect / Engineer thing.


From what I can gather, architecture is generally artistic, and engineering is generally technical. The stereotype is of architects coming up with all these awesome looking designs, and the engineer taking one look and saying 'that will never stand up by itself'!

But saying that, I took a paper in Civil Eng History, which covered things like building styles, materials, and structural features (like arches) through the ages. That was probably as close as I ever got to 'architecture' as such, and I have to say it was pretty interesting.

A combination of the two could be useful, but may take 7 or 8 years to achieve. To still be involved in buildings, you'd have to become a structural engineer, which involves a lot of applied calculus. If maths and physics ain't your thing, learn now or forget it!


As far as job prospects go, here in NZ (and from what I hear in other places too) the market cannot get enough professional engineers. My class of about 100 all walked into jobs, so it's definately good to be in my position!

I really don't know about architects, mainly because you don't need them to build roads

quote>

To add to this, I am a fully qualified Technical Architect, what I studied first was a degree in Architectural Technology and became an Architectural technologist, I studied basic architecture but did alot on Building Technology, surveying, basic structural engineering, building services etc. etc. (this took me 4 years including 1 year practical) I then did a further 3 years of which I have only just finished at my local university in architecture. I now have a Technical background on buildings as well as an art background. This is in the UK thought so some countries may be diiferent to what they offer, being a part time firefighter makes things intresting as well, but thats beside the point. The best thing to do is decide what your really want to do, I have had many architects drawings that I have had to redesign parts of the buildings to help the structural engineer and make it work to the regulations. I think the term architectural technician is known accross the globe and that is how I started, and you get the background of many aspects in the construction industry which prepares you for it better in my opinion. Best thing to do is discuss this with your careers officer at you school. Please note some architecture degrees int eh UK require you to do a 1 years foundation degree in art, before enrolling. I am no artist I admit, but my technical background got me into my job and course, and now I am designing buildings that work as well as look good.

[organicsabre 1]

Date: 7/17/2005 6:29:47 PM
Author: Chartsengrafs

Date: 7/17/2005 3:30:10 PM Author: DuskTrooper ^^ Exactly. And once again, everything done by those architects seem the same. Take Gehry's Bilbao Museao, the Walt Disney music hall, as welkl as part of the Chicago Millenium Park. All of them use the same curved metal elements, which was great at first, but, is now becoming cliched. Then, he is hired by other firms, just because he is Gehry, and then, you know the results.

Now Libeskind's design habits involve the usage of crystalline forms, and many angles, which is becoming overused (especially in the WTC plans, where several of the buildings are nearly the same; the only main difference is the heights of the structures). Also, I agree that Libeskind, and the people whp are in charge of the new WTC project are making the project a symbol of greed, and super-egotism.

quote>

I take it that you're agreeing with the others on Gehry and Libeskind then!? The thing that has to be kept in mind is that every architect has their style - a sort of signature, so certain themes or forms will likely recur in their designs.

I feel I should stress that Libeskind is an innocent party in the watering-down of the WTC plans. The guy is determined not to be pushed out of the project, but creative control over the design was wrestled from him by Larry Silverstein and his people. Unfortunately, it's the usual story, and nothing has been done to rectify the situation, probably because no-one is bothered enough.

quote>

Another thing you have to realise there are not that many super architects to coin a phrase who are able to get this large high profile jobs. Most architects who work int he industry have client with not much money, want mundane buildings. Out of the last 50 projects I have been involved in only 1 have our practice been able to really let our hair down and design something unconventional, the rest which consists mainly of housing, industrial units and school extensions are the main jist of our work.

For people going into the industry or wanting to become an architect, don't think that you'll be able to design all these large buildings or buildings that really stand out, because in real life unless you are in a very large practice that type of work will only be a maximum of 10% of what commisions the practice will be taking on. also in the UK you only need one old G@T in the planning office to not think to the future who only wants crap looking traditional buildings. and at the end of the day it is the planners that will descide whether it is built or not and in real life their is so much back stabbing and corruptness (in the Uk planning athority anyway) you just need to open your eyes to what the work you will be doing will entire and I can assure you it isn't always nice one off arty buildings. For example, in Lincoln where I work int he UK, we designed a hotel extension onto a 17th century pub (formally 4 cottages), a building behind was demolished by others and a new block of flats built behind which raises 4 stories above the pub. Our design was to blend the traditional building with traditional materials, with a modern glass entrance foyer and posh stairwell, which worked well. The only thing the planners failed us on was we were 1 storey above the original building and it apparently spoilt the view of a church from the road, they didn't take into account the 4 storey higher new building (which had been approved and had just started construction behind our building this definately blocks the view!!) appologies for my rant but if you are going into the industry, please go into it with your eyes open as its not what you think alot of the time. I still recomend the job and the study time is worth it in the end, so i wish those people wishing to pursue the career luck. If you have any questions please ask and I will try and help.

Heres a pic of this project before full photo render (this is created in archicad) the big grey mass behind is the towering new building by others I was talkign about).



Hope this is of use to you.