Sunday, December 13, 2015

To the Student in Architecture (Part Three)

Last summer I was invited to a promotional tour sponsored by Anderson Windows. Our group of about twenty architects came from different states, all specializing in residential design. During one of our social events the conversation turned to zoning codes and the increasing difficulty in getting anything done under a labyrinth of rules and regulations. This is a common subject amongst architects. All cities everywhere are making things harder instead of easier. The time and cost of implementing new rules delays projects and drives up costs.  I threw in my usual complaint about how these evolving rules are my greatest frustration. “It is the one thing,” I said, “ that makes me want to leave the profession and go on to something else. I want to spend my days creating architecture, not jumping through bureaucratic hoops.” I was exaggerating the degree of my frustration, but a young architect from Houston immediately countered, “Oh, no. It’s what makes my job interesting.  I love figuring out the puzzle of codes and arriving at a solution that makes a project work.”  Obviously a more optimistic thinker than myself!
Frank Lloyd Wright surrounded by his students.
The Houston architect's response did make me think more broadly about the profession of architecture. For me, design was the main draw to the field and is what keeps me interested to this day. However, the student in architecture should know that there are many other aspects to a career in architecture and many ways to practice as a professional. One of the wonderful things about an architectural education is how broad-based it is. Architects are the last of the generalists. (We know a little about a lot of things, but not much about anything in particular!) An architectural education can be great preparation for many different career paths. As an architect, design is not the only way to practice.  The young Houston architect made me realize there are other passions. Problem solving is more than design solutions and architects are, by general training, problem solvers. The various types of jobs in a large office should make this clear. Among the many permutations of architectural practice there are...
  • Specifications writers
  • Presentation artists
  • Client relations experts
  • CAD technicians
  • Community planners
  • Program writers
  • Project managers
Yale school of architecture designed by Paul Rudolph.
The list could go on. Many credentialed architects don't specifically practice architectural design.  They may even find careers outside of architectural firms in such things as law, building administration, education, construction management, community development, code writing,  and industry consulting.  The point is that, as generalists, architects are eminently qualified to take on a broad array of tasks that indirectly affect the design of the built environment. Taking this a step further: if a student were able to couple an architecture degree with an MBA or an engineering or law degree, then you have a commodity in extremely rare supply (and in high demand) on the job market.
Student exhibition from a class taught by the author at the University of Oklahoma.

Student work at the University of Oklahoma by Wm. Devine.

Another student project from an exhibition at
the University of Oklahoma. 
To the student in architecture I must amend my initial rush to caution. I've previously implied that unless you truly have a passion for design, forget about architecture.  However, there are other passions to be found in architecture that I may be immune to. So, my amended advice is to discover what architecture is, or can be, for you. See if your talents coincide with some aspect of architecture, and look at what part of this broad field might be of interest to you.

To the student in architecture: you may discover a world of architecture that goes beyond the common conceptions of what an architect ought to be. That can be exciting in itself and may nourish a career over a lifetime. Best wishes in discovering your passion!
Drafting room and "classroom" at Wright's Taliesin West studio.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

To the Student in Architecture (Part Two)

On June 9th in 1900 the great architect Louis Sullivan gave a lecture in Chicago entitled The Young Man in Architecture.  He outlined architectural ideals and inspired young architects like Walter Burley Griffin who was present in the audience. Sullivan later published a book on the subject, The Young Man in Architecture (1939). Frank Lloyd Wright gave a similar lecture in 1931. Exploring the same themes, it was entitled To the Young Man in Architecture. In it Wright said, "...beauty is no less the true purpose of rational modern architectural endeavor than ever, just as beauty remains the essential characteristic of architecture itself."  However, in both Sullivan's and Wright's manifestos you will note the male pronoun. It was assumed that only males could become architects or would want to. Architecture was not a woman’s profession.
Louis Sullivan.

Frank Lloyd Wright
As recently as 1959 a brochure aimed at high school students asked Should You Be an Architect? It was written by architect Pietro Belluschi and was provided as a public service by the New York Life Insurance Company. It also bore the imprimatur of the American Institute of Architects. The leaflet repeatedly used the male pronoun. “A few boys… pick architecture while they still are very young.” “Most boys… have had an opportunity to weigh various careers.” “After a boy has finished college, he still must get three years’ training…” (Emphasis added.) And so on. The concluding paragraph gets more specific:
You’ve noticed, I suppose, that I’ve directed my remarks to boys. I cannot, in whole conscience, recommend architecture as a profession for girls. I know some women who have done well at it, but the obstacles are so great that it takes an exceptional girl to make a go of it. If she insists on becoming an architect, I would try to dissuade her. If she still insists, she may be that exceptional one.
Brochure from 1959.
Today we find such assertions inappropriate at best and insulting at worst. But this misogyny continued for decades. When I was in architectural school, the number of female students could be counted on one hand. A good friend, Elaine, was explicitly told by a counseling professor to leave the school. It’s not a place for women; get out. She ignored the advice, graduated, and went on to enjoy a successful career in architecture. Elaine was in the vanguard. The situation for women is somewhat better today. According to AIA membership statistics, 17% of all members are female compared to only 9% in 2000. The picture appears even better when looking at the percentage of women in architecture school: 43%. (According to the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture.)

However, when you look at the statistics for women advancing in architecture to licensing, employment, professorships, and principals, the percentages steadily diminish. The “glass ceiling” starts to take its toll, apparently.

To the student in architecture: your gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or politics shouldn’t matter.  For the most part, it does not today. A more interesting question is what happens as people graduate and go on to careers in architecture. It is a question that could be asked about many fields formerly dominated by white males:  physicians, air traffic controllers, police officers, chefs.
Can you tell whether the architect of this structure is a man or a woman?
Ms. Zaha Hadid, architect for the above building.

The bottom line, then, is the motivation of the individual. If you really want to practice architecture you will feel it inside and nothing will stop you. To that young person in architecture I wish them luck.  However, what is needed more is persistence. If you are in high school or younger and you are thinking about pursuing architecture, your counselors will tell you two things: you need to know math and you should have artistic talent. The former is only somewhat true and the later is only qualitatively true. Regarding math skills: a sense of geometry is absolutely necessary because architecture is described by geometry. However, higher math skills - like calculus - are more

How many architects remember integral or differential calculus?
appropriate for engineers.  For architects, higher math is a hurdle to leap over and, for some, an insurmountable obstacle.  It shouldn't be. I don't know any architects who use calculus in their work routine. Once learned, quickly forgotten.  A talent for art is a little more subjective.  Undoubtedly, architecture is an art. However, if an individual is particularly good at painting or music or sculpture, does that mean he or she would make a good architect? Decidedly not. Conversely, if a person had no obvious talent in the fine arts, does that me he or she would not make a good architect?  No. Architecture is a unique art.  It combines practical considerations (the clients program, budget, etc.) with the need for beauty and originality.  An understanding of the art in architecture is certainly a prerequisite for a good architect... but I have no idea how you measure that ability. I think a person would have to know it inside.

I said persistence is what is needed when building a career in architecture. That applies at every level. Persistence in getting though math, even though you will scant need it. Persistence in finding your own definition of the art in architecture. Persistence in getting through more than half a decade of university, serving an apprenticeship (internship), and studying for the licensing exam. Remember, most don't pass the entire thing the first time around, so just taking the exam can eat up several years! 

Still want to be an architect? Than I assume you are a persistent personality and you certainly must have a passion for architecture. 


Wednesday, November 25, 2015

To the Student in Architecture (Part One)

Over the years I have had contact with aspiring young architects from grammar school to university.  Student groups of all ages have come through my office, I have given talks at career days, and I have counseled young people thinking about a career in architecture at every invitation.  For a few years I taught architectural design at the college level and even taught architectural drafting at a trade school. Whenever these young students ask me what I think of their contemplated career choice in architecture, my answer is always the same: run in the opposite direction as fast as you can!   Most people have deep misconceptions about what an architect does - how he or she spends a typical day and, especially, what they earn. Architecture is viewed favorably among professions, with few negative connotations. That’s because it is perceived as something far more glamorous and financially rewarding than the reality.

Of course, my usual follow-up when discouraging a career in architecture is, unless you truly have a passion for it. That would be true with most jobs. However, it seems to me to be especially true of architecture because the path to obtaining a license is very long and the remuneration rather dicey.  Is there enough reward for the investment? Some careers might be a logical choice because the money and benefits are so great you can put up with a lot of BS and some degree of delayed gratification (early retirement, for example).  That’s probably not going to happen with most architecture-related jobs.  Unless you are a star architect working internationally (think Gehry, Liebskind, or Hadid) the hours will be long, the pay meager, and the opportunities for creativity few. Think, young student in architecture, if six years of college, an extended internship, and low pass rates in the professional exam are worth the time and expense.  Career paths in law and medicine are much faster and more lucrative. Or get an MBA and open doors in business and finance. Perhaps go into construction or development where the decision-making power in architecture truly resides.  Anything but architecture itself!

And yet, do I regret my own choice of career? No. Because I didn’t have a choice. I had to be an architect. The kind of passion I had for architecture drove me to get the education and experience I needed to become an architect. It sustained me in seeking out clients to support that ambition.  So, if you truly have a passion for it, nothing will stop you from becoming an architect. These next couple of  blog entries are addressed to that young student in architecture.

Monday, November 16, 2015

An Architect's Screensaver

Every day I find myself smiling when I look at the screensaver on my iPhone. It’s an image of Santiago Calatrava’s Milwaukee Art Museum. The main space, which serves as a lobby and an event center, is a cathedral to art. It is pure space, uninterrupted by superfluous furnishings or ornamentation. The photograph (taken by the late Rob Munger) captures the building with people to give it scale. Light shimmers on the highly polished floor surface. The structure soars to great height and seems to hover above lake Michigan, seen through the arc of windows. Of all the iconic museums designed by famous architects in recent years (Gehry’s in Bilbao, Liebskind’s in Denver, Renzo Piano’s in Chicago, etc.) the Milwaukee museum is, in my opinion, the best. I could (and sometime probably will) spend some words on analyzing why this is so. For now, please allow me to share my current screensaver. 
The lobby of Santiago Calatrava's Milwaukee Art Museum.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Is Dr. Ben Carson an Architect?

This blog is about exploring architecture in all its facets. It says so right on the masthead. Architecture is my area of expertise and I am pretty scrupulous about limiting my observations to just that subject. Sometimes other realms overlap this singular intent, as when I felt compelled to write about Donald Trump being “classy.” (The architecture he espouses is distinctly not classy.)  Now it happens again: politics intrudes into the world of architecture with Republican candidate Dr. Ben Carson's assertion that the ancient Egyptian pyramids were built to store grain. In 1998 at Andrews University he said “when you look at the way the pyramids were made…. My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids in order to store grain.” On November 4, 2015 Dr. Carson confirmed his original statement when questioned by reporters. The subject has become entwined with 2015 presidential politics.

Is Ben Carson an architect? Or an archaeologist? No on both counts. So on what authority does Dr. Carson make this ridiculous claim?  He knows the pyramids aren’t hollow, doesn’t he? A grade-school-level of knowledge tells us the pyramids are mostly solid rock with a few small chambers and tunnels. Egyptian writings tell us their purpose: for royal entombment.  The pyramids also happen to predate the biblical Joseph. Furthermore, the Bible itself provides no corroboration for this empty idea. Dr. Ben Carson has no training in architecture; he had best stay away from the subject altogether and stick to something he knows, like politics. Oh, wait. He has no experience in politics either…
Pyramid at Giza.  Mostly solid.
Dr. Ben Carson.  Mostly hollow. 
For a detailed analysis of the pyramids-as-granaries idea, read Jason Colavito’s November 6th blog: The Long Strange History of the Pyramids as the Granaries of Joseph.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Lantz Architecture Blog

In this blog I have written about the architectural work of LaVerne Lantz . Now another writer, Maureen Brock, is devoting a new blog to Lantz's work. Brock is a marketing professional specializing in the design of websites and social media strategies. Her blog is a labor of love featuring original photography of Lantz projects.  It also reproduces old photographs and drawings from the Lantz archives. You can find Ms. Brock's blog at LaVerne Lantz: An American Architect. 
Wurster residence by LaVerne Lantz.
LaVerne Lantz's own residence in Delafield, Wisconsin was opened by Molly Lantz for a recent tour of Wright-influenced homes. This was in addition to a hugely successful "Wright and Like" home tour in 2014 which included six of Lantz's projects.  This activity reflects a growing interest in Lantz's work and mid-century modern architecture in general. There is even a Facebook page devoted to current and former home owners, friends, and fans of LaVerne Lantz's architectural legacy, The LaVerne Lantz Homeowners Group. I ran across the Facebook page while writing this entry and found, to my surprise, a photo of one of my own designs identified as a "little gem by former Lantz apprecntice, Denver architect Michael Knorr." (In fact, I was only eighteen years of age when it was designed and Lantz was instrumental in helping land my very first client.)
Wurster residence.
For those interested in my previous Lantz blog entries, here are the links:

Part I.
Part II.
Part III.

Images: George Hall







Thursday, August 20, 2015

Donald Trump and Classy Architecture

A focus group of Donald Trump fans was recently interviewed on MSNBC. One question caught my attention:
Q. How do you envision a Donald Trump presidency?
A. It would be classy. 
Seriously?  Donald Trump is classy?  Regardless of what one may think of Trump's political ideas (or lack of them) the adjective classy doesn't belong in the same sentence as Trump. That's my opinion, but, obviously, to some people Trump does connote class. The conversation reveals a huge rift in agreement on what classy even consists of. 
This isn't a blog about politics, it's about architecture. So my comments come from a specific perspective. The first time I ever saw a Trump building, Trump Tower in New York, the adjective that came to mind wasn't classy. Gauche, perhaps. Or, less kindly (in Trump's world it seems OK to be unkind), cheap, pretentious, megalomanic, delusional....
Trump Tower is like most of Trump's real estate. The color "gold" is slathered over everything, either as brass, anodized aluminum, or gold paint. None of it is really gold. That doesn't matter; pour on enough of the gaudy, shiny stuff and people get the point: this is rich man's territory. There are also plenty of mirrored surfaces, suggesting infinite amounts of wealth. It is a triumph of glitz over style. Strip away the surface decoration and there is very little architecture left and zero originality. The lobby is just a suburban mall turned vertical.

Trump's penthouse apartment in the same building is even worse. It is a shameless display of gaudy decoration, impressive by its opulence, but not by its good design. All the trappings of a rich man are strewn about, but there is no architecture and no sense of style.  It is such a cartoonish interpretation of what a rich man's home should look like, it might as well be the apartment of Thurston Howell III or Scrooge McDuck. That this can be construed as classy is discouraging.

Maybe it's my conservative Lutheran upbringing. My childhood was imbued with the idea that a display of wealth was not polite.  Certainly no one has an exclusive claim on what is good or bad in the world of design. I'm aware that criticizing another person's idea of classy contains its own snobbish arrogance. Who am I to set the standard? Nevertheless, the qualities of good design may be debated, but it should not be a battle of opinions. It should be a debate about principles. I can't see any sturdy design principles behind Donald Trump's self-created potentate trappings. It's not classy.