Re: architecture schools
From: Graham Meltzer (g.meltzerqut.edu.au)
Date: Mon, 8 May 95 17:33 CDT
Peter Starr writes

>Most conventional building design seems to be either motivated by the needs 
>of the developer; to get the buildings okayed fast, built quickly, and sited 
>for perusal from the passing automobile; or the need of the architect and 
>the owner to "express" themselves; or of the owner to live out some 
>rural-urban fantasy mix.  Rarely, if ever, is community and the incredibly 
>complicated issues of "urban" (and by that I mean public) design even 
>considered beyond the demands of local civic code -- which cares more about 
>fire-truck access, and believe-it-or-not, potential nuclear war, then 
>children's play areas, the commons, the green, public discourse, shared 
>ownership and responsibility and community.  No wonder people feel 
>alienated, angry and driven to consume.
>
>These issues are probably not addressed much in conventional architecture 
>courses.  I wouldn't be surprised if the architecture establishment (here's 
>to a great 60's expression) spent one half of one semester dealing with it, 
>just about the same amount of time that modern doctors spend on nutrition 
>and exercise in med school.  In another words, in a linear educational 
>system, it would be difficult to see the shrubs for the paths, if you're 
>being trained to be the next corbusier.

I think Peter, you would find quite a change has occured in Architecture
schools over the last few years. I don't have any hard data to prove it, but
I imagine there has been a significant world-wide swing toward a greater
focus on issues of ecological and social sustainability (within which I
include the issues of community which you raise). 

I can speak though, for the school here at Queensland University of
Technology and our sister school at the University of Queensland where I was
a student. Both schools have re-written traditional technological subjects
such as Arch. Science and Building Construction so that issues of
sustainability fully determine the course content and approaches to teaching
and learning. 

As far as the key subject of Design goes ... I coordinate the second year at
QUT where we focus entirely and for the whole year on a range of issues such as
* environmental degradation
* social disintegration and alienation
* low energy design
* healthy (physical and phsychological) building
* designing with an ecological ethic
* sustainable urban form
* sociable public space
* affordability 

In the second semester we deal very thoroughly with the matters of community
and urban form which you raise. The design projects are carefully selected
so as to highlight the way in which people and communities interact within
the built environment. Cohouisng of course becomes a usefull exemplar for
the purpose of illustrating the possibilities.

Students revist these issues time and again in the subsequent years of the
course.

I entirely agree with your comment linking peoples social alienation with
their drive to consume. This is the subject of my ongoing research and an
issue which I integrate into teaching at every oportunity. So the focus in
architectural terms becomes ... modest, responsive, appropriate,
thoughtfull, nurturing space making.

Cheers

Graham Meltzer 

School of Architecture, Interior and Industrial Design
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Tel:(07)864 2535(w)  (07)870 2090(h)  Fax: (07)864 1528

"The neccessity to unite with other human beings, to be related to them,
is an imperative need on the fulfillment of which, man's sanity depends" 
                 E. Fromm (The Sane Society(1965)) 

  • (no other messages in thread)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.