{"id":323,"date":"2012-09-26T12:39:17","date_gmt":"2012-09-26T17:39:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ecooptimism.com\/?p=323"},"modified":"2013-07-07T14:40:42","modified_gmt":"2013-07-07T19:40:42","slug":"whats-an-architect-to-do","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ecooptimism.com\/?p=323","title":{"rendered":"What\u2019s an architect to do?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Some not-so-startling news \u2013 at least to those of us directly affected \u2013 was released last week by the American Institute of Architects.\u00a0 The gist of the sobering report<\/a>: architectural firm billings have dropped 40% since 2008 and more than 28% of positions have disappeared.<\/p>\n

(We always, by the way, seem to be one of the professions hardest hit by economic cycles. In a previous period, I recall a newspaper headline that went something to the effect of \u201cIn This Recession, Be Glad You\u2019re Not an Architect.\u201d I couldn\u2019t find that despondent headline in Google just now. But, searching the New York Times, I turned up apparently similar articles from other downturns: \u201cRecession is Ravaging Architectural Firms\u201d (1992), \u201cMany Architects Are Losing Jobs in the Recession\u201d (1983), among others.\u201d)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The situation assessed more bluntly at planetizen.com<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I brought this up in my return visit on Curtis B. Wayne\u2019s radio show \u201cBurning Down the House\u201d this past Sunday (archived here<\/a>) in which we were discussing ecodesign and economics. While our larger topics concerned the origins of suburban sprawl and how that subsequently became the \u201cAmerican Way of Life,\u201d I used those statistics as a segue to talk about what it is that architects and other designers can or should be doing in a future that is likely to preclude making things \u2013 buildings and objects \u2013 on the same material scale as in the previous century.<\/p>\n

On the face of it, there\u2019s a conflict of interest in a designer advocating a less materialistic world. Are we, in effect, talking ourselves out of jobs? (You know, the jobs that don\u2019t exist in the first place\u2026.) Certainly we have to spurn McMansion commissions, or at least urge our less eco-minded clients to adhere to the advice Sarah Susanka provides in the Not So Big House<\/em>. And it\u2019s rather hard to justify designing yet another chair or teapot when the world is not exactly lacking in those.<\/p>\n

But \u2013 and here comes the EcoOptimist\u2019s sunny side of the storm \u2013 architects and designers are particularly well suited to the imminent task of advocating for and persuasively cajoling us into the \u201cbetter place\u201d that can be the outcome of our dual eco crises. As I\u2019ve mentioned previously, designers are, virtually by definition<\/a>, optimists; \u201cDesigners look at a thing or a problem and immediately start imagining what could be.\u201d And as my blog\u2019s alter ego might say, \u201cproblems, have we got problems.\u201d So that optimism has plenty of targets to address.<\/p>\n

Designers, obviously, also have to be visionaries. How else to see to possibilities amidst the economic and ecological rubble? Or to envision potential utopias where others fear post-apocalyptic dystopia? Accompanying that, most designers have the ability, developed through years of sometimes contentious client and public agency meetings, to communicate their visions. (One hopes, of course, that they are not so good at communicating that they are able to white- or green-wash a less than visionary idea. I\u2019m looking at you, Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright. Plan Voisin<\/a> and Broadacre City<\/a>, as enticing as they may have looked at the time, did not help.) \u00a0Environmentalism and ecodesign have long-standing PR and image problems, with most people connoting the movements with personal sacrifice. Designers, working in teams with others as they often do in their projects, can both devise positive solutions and create imagery that allows the public to envision how our lives would be affected.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It\u2019s often been stated that architects are \u201cRenaissance men\u201d (apologies for the gender specificity), with their endeavors encompassing math, physics, sociology, psychology \u2013 and sometimes, for those designing private residences, couples counseling \u2013 as well as, of course, the expected 2D and 3D arts. This generalist background, which unfortunately is becoming less the norm in architectural education, is necessary for dealing with complex, multidisciplinary issues in a systems manner. Specialists, on the other hand, are not usually equipped to synthesize the factors outside their expertise; consciously or subconsciously they focus on what they are familiar with. (Old medical joke: What’s the difference between a general practitioner and a specialist? One treats what you have; the other thinks you have what he treats.)<\/p>\n

Here, then, is the upside of that AIA survey. Yes, conventional building and object design, along with their attendant jobs, are going away. That\u2019s a good thing in terms of environmental solutions. Turns out it\u2019s also a good thing for architects and designers, as well as the world at large, in that their abilities can provide a much-needed service as we all search for and develop those solutions.<\/p>\n

A post in The Atlantic Cities<\/a> about the AIA survey asks: \u201cWhere are all the out-of-work architects going? Possibly to jobs in real estate and city government. And that could be good news for everyone.\u201d In past recessions, architects, especially recent grads, have often found their careers re-routed. Coincidentally, a few years back, the AIA embarked on an initiative to encourage architects to run for public office, observing<\/a> \u201carchitects learn creative problem solving and other skills that can make them effective community leaders.\u201d The emphasis there is on architects\u2019 strengths in listening and consensus building. Fair enough and important enough, but the potential goes beyond that I think, to employing those multidisciplinary, generalist skills mentioned above into a \u2013 and I use the word hesitantly \u2013 holistic synthesis.<\/p>\n

So designers have both an opportunity and a responsibility to redirect their talents. For reasons of both necessity and choice, we designers need to apply ourselves to developing and communicating our constructed futures. We need the work, and it\u2019s good work to be doing.<\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>