|
<< ...back
Question of logic
Engineering in architecture
If we agree that design is about integrating different building and environmental aspects into one spatial structure, synthetic functional and formal body, we have to consider another problem, or at least the same problem from another point of view. It seems important to stress that the traditional definition of engineering in relation to architecture cannot be used here. It can be adapted and broadened to cover at least all the main complementary specializations that interact with each other and with architecture at large in the building process.
Engineering is a rich field, a complex category of tasks, with a separate history. It has a lot in common with architecture. Modern architecture is impossible to imagine separate from engineering as it simply couldn't exist without it. At the same time, we are not aiming for architects who possess the complete knowledge and skill of an engineer, but for a creative and comprehensive interpretation of knowledge from bordering fields, including engineering. It is no longer possible to produce a skilled architect using a few rules of construction and composition. Young minds have to be trained in a number of complementary disciplines that interact with architecture, from ecology and themes of landscaping to passive energy systems for housing.
Shifts of emphasis have taken place and contemporary knowledge encompasses more variety than in the past. The educational system has to redraw its frontiers to include territories formerly distant and discard some which are closer to home (Foucault, 1966).
Contemporary development in all technical and cultural fields is fast, advanced, and complex. This is also true in the field of architecture. Concentration, dedication and innate curiosity, even discipline, are necessary in order to follow the trend of current ideas, techniques and the development of building technology and materials. A present-day example of this is Domus Vinary, designed by architects Herzog & de Meroun, where the ecological concept has been implemented and developed using traditional architectural techniques while the detailing has been adopted from civil engineering, showing the possible direction for a creative and substantial architecture of today.
It seems more logical to present students with basic or theoretical principles, inform them of technical possibilities and ways in which engineers react to certain problems and answer certain questions. The theoretical scope - the problem definition, its solution and the principles upon which a specific solution is based - is relevant information and should be memorized by an architect, instead of memorizing a whole range of formulae, details, and construction drawings that belong to a particular branch of a trade and a different occupation, as is done in traditional schools (Davidson, 1998).
But training in complementary disciplines does not mean that students should ultimately be preoccupied with that knowledge. To change direction means to change selected levels and types of information that a student is exposed to. Some very important information is encapsulated in quite basic principles: how things work, what the roots of a current idea are and what its consequences are for the human environment and for architecture. I advocate basic information instead of hard training, hardware instead of software. Architectural training is no longer meant to produce some of the qualities of a skilled engineer: speed, skill and sufficient craftsmanship. The computer era has made it possible to replace technicians in many aspects and phases of the design process. For that reason it seems more logical to help students to create themselves as a complete personality able to creatively interact and interconnect with different information sources, from different fields, and to give them the tools to establish a principle of total structure and to achieve control over this on many different levels.
Is there enough time in school programmes to do this for all fields related to architecture? Certainly not. Or the school programme would be academically very poor. What then is the sense of 'learning' out-of-date principles, techniques or systems, if students cannot understand basic work principles? There is more to be learned from a detailed, broadened and deepened analysis of the construction and building processes of concrete bridges, for example, or the Eiffel Tower or Paxton's Crystal Palace, than from any of the theories of reinforced concrete plasticity or a basic practicum in steel construction. Should we produce false specialists? I wholeheartedly believe that this is not our intention. Our task and ideal is to teach students to communicate within global society and with other professions, to use different techniques and languages, the spoken, the written, the drawn, and to learn to present themselves confidently and improve the world and the environment - in short, to design.
These students should be able, by combining many facets of their learning, to integrate the totality of the living environment - the more professions participating, the better. But the architect himself does not have the capability to embody all knowledge from the different specializations. It would seem that our intention to create a universal super-professional must fail if our ambition overestimates the mentioned problems and processes. Moreover, this approach takes up the students' energy and time, making them unable to concentrate on their specific interest and a particular field.
Towards a new strategy
Significant friction is still felt between different specializations. Interest in someone else's field can be seen as an attempted invasion of professional territory. Each profession has its own set of values, concerns and blinders. In Appleyard's (1991) view, for example, traffic engineers have been concerned with function, safety and cost of facilities, and they are less, or not at all, interested in, nor do they understand, aesthetics. Architects, on the other hand, value amenity and aesthetics. Naturally, conflicts take place and communication between an architect, preoccupied with the whole, and a specialist, concentrated on a part of the same structure, can easily emerge.
In communication with other team participants, it becomes obvious that so-called 'engineers', no matter how skilled they may be, are not capable of following an architect's concept and, particularly, of integrating their work into the totality of the formal approach. Often they need to translate an idea into some recognizable model. Many modern buildings lack proper coordination between spatial form, construction design, equipment and installations. To a certain degree, these problems could be solved or diminished by the interior design - but nevertheless, the basic problem of unity and homogeneity within the total building structure remains. Look, for example, at the Rem Koolhaas Educatorium in Utrecht (1998). Detailing and construction of some of the most sensitive parts of the building are so poor that these defeat the clarity of whole concept. In the presence of a very simple and strong basic idea, these sorts of problems become more visible and more devastating for whole impression. They thus affect current minimalistic design concepts in a much more far-reaching way than they do any other concepts.
We ask ourselves what the reason for such differences is: standpoint, statement, detailing, budget, builder? Probably all of them. It seems that the idea of the super-professional architect should be reexamined. The standpoint of most architects is that the problem lies with the engineers participating in the design process. Most experienced architects feel this way and complain about problems and about missing communication with engineers in the design process.
The architect, not being a super-professional, is not able to retain all knowledge and information. He/she must concentrate on form, budgets, materials, detailing, coordination, not on the installation of heating systems, ventilation ducts and electrical wiring. Cooperation with engineers is inevitable.
It seems that some other educational orientation or method would be more appropriate to training architects. We now strive to gather knowledge from other fields in order to become super-professionals. Our goal seems utopian. If we consider architecture to be a holy profession, as some architects do, than we also consider ourselves to be gods. Why not put our efforts where they will be more effective? We may take a god-given strategy and attempt to create our inner world around an architecture that would be better organized and more sufficient to the built-up environment. By dispersing our particular knowledge to other familiar and related disciplines, we may be able to educate engineers towards a better understanding of form and architecture as a context within which they have to act.
By improving the programmes of the engineering schools, special training courses and workshops, architects get a chance to educate young people, future engineers who may become valued members of the team. Creative games enable students of architecture and engineering to experience imaginary or virtual situations, different times and places together. In the first phase of these games students should take an active role - define the problem, build up to the critical point, evaluate the arguments made and decide what to do. In the second phase, through group work, students could make mutual presentations and discuss other pertinent problems. The goals of the creative games would be, in the first instance, to break with present problems and to advance the capacity for lateral thinking that helps students to understand the complexity of the field, but also to practice the complex thinking process (Bobic, 1991).
A secondary but important consequence of this change in approach and strategy is that the time and energy of the student of architecture is saved for concentration on his/her own field. By gathering recent information from other disciplines, a student can gain know-how instead of knowledge (Virilio, 1997). At that point, a diversification of professional profiles can take place. The student could travel, for example, to learn about reality of the world, the differing contexts, both cultural and social, and to try to recreate the profession by concentrating on the relation between man and the totality of his environment, instead of staying put to become a perfectly trained professional who will later shape more of the same.
Bibliography:
R. Ackof, (1974), Redesigning the Future, John Willey & Sons, New York.
D. Appeleyard, (1991), 'Foreword', in: A.V. Moudon, (ed.), PublicStreets for Public Use, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 5-8.
M.Bobic, (1991), 'Uoblicavanje iskustva (Shaping experience)', CIP, No. 11, Zagreb, pp. 9-11.
E. de Bono, (1977), Latheral Thinking, Pelican Books, London.
O.Bouman, (1998), 'Architectural training faces new questions', Arhis,, No. 5, Nai, Rotterdam, pp. 3-6.
P. Buschanan, (1989), 'Verbal Vices', Architectural Review, No. 2, London, pp. 4-5.
P. Buschanan, (1989), 'What is Wrong With Architectural Education', Architectural Review, No. 7, London, pp. 24-6.
S. Davidson, (ed.), (1998), Anyhow, The MIT Press, Cambridge.
S. Davidson, (1998), 'Architecture between theory and ideology', Archis, No. 11, Nai, Rotterdam, pp. 19-21.
M. Foucault, (1966), The Order of Things, Verso (1994), New York.
F. Fromonot, (1997) 'AA School une école', L'architecture d'oujourd'hui, No.314, Paris, pp. 89-99.
Ghirardo, (1989), 'Authenticity or Rambo Redux', Architectural Review, No. 7, London.
Hillier and Hanson, (1984), Social Logic of Space, The MIT Press, Cambridge.
K. Shannon, (1999), 'Educating Architects". Arhis, No.01, Nai, Rotterdam, pp. 52-3
P.Virilio, (1997), Open Sky, Verso, London.
|
