Rebuttal Over Roark, Wright et al

The following piece is a rebuttal on two previous articles, the one about Howard Roark, and the other about Wright and Corbusier. This entry would just be a point by point commentary to the different issues raised in these articles. Since these two articles have been posted for some time already, these would be somewhat a belated reply. But as they say, better late than never.


1. It is rather unfair to label ALL architects as arrogant, or as having this air of self-importance, because not all architects are arrogant, and that there are other professionals or particular groups of people, who are equally as arrogant, or even more arrogant than architects. You just look at mass media and you’ll see that politicians, filthy rich people, writers, sports celebrities, movie stars and corporate CEO’s have egos more bloated than those of architects’.

It just so happened that Ayn Rand chose an architect to be the star of her novel that architects have become an incidental victim of accusations of arrogance. If she had chosen a painter or an inventor instead, then I’m pretty sure that someone would label painters or inventors as being arrogant.


2. Architects, being also designers or artists, would have a tendency to be “protective” of their design or creation. When you tinker with a painter’s art piece, that painter would raise hell with you. When you tamper with a novelist’s writing, that novelist would raise hell with you. When you fiddle with a singer’s musical composition, that singer would raise hell with you.

Can you name an artist who isn’t proud of his work? Can you name an architect who doesn’t want to have his/her structure be listed as one of the great works in history? Can you name a person who wouldn’t react if someone messes his/her creation?

Again, it just so happened that Ayn Rand made her character Howard Roark blew up a building. That particular incident is more of an exaggeration and can also be interpreted in a symbolical manner. I really don’t think that any architect for that matter, would dare to blow up any building. Maybe smash few drafting boards and models (just like what Kevin Kline did in the movie “Life As a House”, nice movie by the way), but not blow up buildings. Those stuff are just for books and movies.


3. Arrogance, in itself, is not really a “misdeed” or an intolerable trait. It is when one’s arrogance does not match one’s qualifications or credentials that arrogance really becomes an intolerable cruelty. It is one thing to brag about one’s genius and have the product to show for it. It is another to brag without having anything to show for it. I think of the two, the latter is the more appalling.

I know of some local architects who think they are this genius of a designer, and claims to have done this and that building, have won this and that award. And yet when you look at their creations, it is nothing more than a copycat of some foreign structure. I’ve even heard of stories (though unsubstantiated) of heads of architectural firms who “borrowed” ideas from their staff and claim them as their own.

I think the more compelling question regarding arrogance is, “Can you back it up?” If you can’t, then you just have to shut your mouth. It’s just like saying put your foot where your mouth is.


4. “Sterile public buildings, look-alike downtowns, and inhumane urban renewal projects” can’t be directly blamed to architects’ “know-it-all attitude”. In the first place, architects do not actually build structures or projects themselves, nor do they have the powers of decision to continue or shelve a project. It is the client who provides the project brief, and in the end, it is the client who will approve or disprove the project because THE MONEY TO FUND THE PROJECT IS THEIRS. If the architect submits a poor design, the client has the right and power to demand the architect to redo a design, or hire a more competent architect.

But again, this would then depend on the level of “awareness” of the client. And this is where the area of responsibility of the architect lies. The architect, upon receipt of the project brief, should properly inform the client every step of the way, and GUIDE HIM HOW TO MAKE PROPER DECISIONS, even if these decisions could mean reduction of benefits on his part. If the architect, with all his inherent knowledge, knows something about the project is wrong but doesn’t inform the client about it because his fee might be put in jeopardy, then that’s already the fault of the architect, not the client. If the architect knows that he lacks certain knowledge about the project, yet he hides under this guise of “architectural omniscience” because his employment might be put in jeopardy, then that’s the fault of the architect.

As in the first rebuttal statement, it is rather unfair to put a generalized blame of “poor architecture” directly to architects, because ARCHITECTS AREN’T GRANTED WITH DECISION-MAKING POWERS REGARDING A PROJECT’S LIFE.


5. The only way architects like Wright, Le Corbusier ever get to “set the standard for our practice” is if society, at large, do embrace their creations, designs and theories, and other architects emulate them (or at least make an attempt to). Not every “delusional architect” gets to be the “standard for the practice”, no matter how weird-looking they try to make their structures look, or how esoteric they try to make their ideologies sound. Eventually, it is society who will be the judge whether their theories or designs can be considered to be the “standard”.

For example in movies, before “The Matrix” was released, no one ever really cared much for the movie since many thought it would be just a typical special effects heavy movie with a stoic-looking Keanu at the starring role. And no one knew who these Wachowski Brothers were. But when the movie was shown, it became a huge box office hit, and its “bullet-time” editing has been copied over and over again by subsequent movies. That was the time when it can be said that “The Matrix” set the standard for cutting-edge visual effects in movies. (Too bad the two sequels were quite lame compared to its ancestor.)

Just like what the article has said, it is one thing to aspire to their level of competence of these architects, and it’s another to imitate their arrogance. I think we should maintain a sense of objectivity in labelling these architects, and do not make the mistake of disregarding their achievements because of the negativity of their character. Even Beethoven, during his times, was considered quite a madman.

We should try to separate the idea from the person. We should try to appreciate the soundness of their theories—if they are sound at all, but at the same time dislike the haughtiness of their personalities.

And if we feel that some “primadonna” architect is getting some attention for his/her designs even though we feel that they are shallow, lacks originality or just plain stupid, then we should publicly make a statement about it, so that the public can be informed about it. If we are not vigilant about these things, then we ourselves are also to blame if these “delusional” architects become the standard from the practice. Just as it is happening now in our country.

What is Our Future as a Profession?

It seems that disillusionment with the architectural profession is not limited to our part of the world, and some people are actually trying to do something about it! I found this at www.patternlanguage.com, a website by Christopher Alexander, a professor of architecture at the University of California Berkeley. It is an open letter to teachers and students of architecture.


May 2002
Open Letter to Teachers and Students of Architecture Around the World

What is Our Future as a Profession?

We have today about 500,000 students of architecture in schools around the world. This means that every year about 120,000 graduate, and every decade sees 1.2 million new architects. Are our schools, curriculum and faculty providing the education that is needed? I think not, hence this open letter to both teachers and students.

It has become commonplace to lament that the professional architect is irrelevant. We all know that more and more construction around the world goes forward without the involvement of a professionally trained architect, and our input is limited to something like 3% of all buildings. We all know that fees are decreasing. I was still shocked recently to hear one project manager working for the Ministry of Defense in England who has recently dropped architectural fees on large military housing projects to 0.3% (yes, one third of one percent) because he feels that is consistent with the contribution. Twenty years ago, the architect on such a project would have received 4-5% of construction cost.

The reasons behind the increasing irrelevance of architects are complex. There are many issues facing us, but one of the more simple ones is that we do not have, as a professional community, adequate platforms, forums, or vocabulary for debating our differences and exchanging information. Ten years ago in an interview published by Progressive Architecture I put on the table my proposal for an agenda for a meaningful debate about current mainstream theory. My agenda hasn't changed much and the debate hasn't taken place.

current mainstream theory only deals with a small fraction of buildings
it does not deal with third world construction or community affairs.
findings in the social sciences are ignored
it does not deal with nature or with ecological issues
it does not deal with money and speculative development in a sensible fashion
it makes no substantive empirical account of human feeling
it does not have any organic connection with the world of construction
there is no coherent explanation of values necessary for good buildings
ordinary people don't like the buildings
no discussion of the value inherent in the built world is possible
the definition of beauty is inadequate, nearly non-existant
Now, I am not disingenuous. Setting agendas is a political activity. My agenda is deeply critical of mainstream theory and teaching and of the buildings of the late twentieth century which, with rare exceptions, are alienating and poorly suited to human needs.

I do feel compelled to speak out. I am a member of a professional community, which is not a community. We have no shared framework for accumulating knowledge. If we go on failing to address the human, technical and environmental issues of the built environment in today's world, our failure will simply lead to our own obsolence as a profession and a built environment that can not sustain itself. There is a lot at stake. And the poor Earth is struggling under the weight of the situation.

Complaining about things is an unproductive path. So, my colleagues and I have rolled up our sleeves and undertaken the heavy task of constructing a website. One of the goals of the website patternlanguage.com is to help shore up our community by using the leveraging potential of the internet for the dissemination and exchange of information.

The website is already quite large and grows daily. There is material for research and classroom discussion. For example, we are posting the archives of The Center for Environmental Structure, unpublished and out-of print materials. The classic text which gives the website its name is now on-line. We are developing generative sequences which are step by step algorithms for design and construction. We wish for these to be "open-source" in that professionals can work with them and give input based on their experience.

It is true that websites are time consuming and expensive to maintain so our work will continue to be done incrementally. We do not finance through advertising but through modest membership fees. Although the site is currently rather one-way, we wish to increase our posting of opinions and papers from teachers, students, and practitioners everywhere. Exchange forums such as chat groups and bulletin boards are costly to administrate, but we want to get there.

If I am going to so much trouble, it is because I am deeply motivated to do so. I am working toward a website that will put my agenda points clearly on the table in a way that can't be ignored. If I ask you to not only read this letter but forward it to others and participate in making the website known and used, it is because I believe many of you share motivations similar to mine. We each have our independent ways of working, different areas of interest and opinions on many points, but the underlying motivations and concerns about the built environment are the same. I am inviting you, as architect, or teacher, or student, to make use of the website, share it with others, give your input, and add connections to a badly needed professional network. We need a future generation of professionals who can tackle the real issues of scale, of humanity in buildings, concern themselves with the bulk of building endeavors on Earth, and regain the respect for our profession that is so badly eroded.

You may be reading this letter in one of two forms:

on the website itself, or
as an email sent to you directly by a colleague.
The letter (whether as an email, or on the site) also provides an opportunity for you to write your own thoughts on these subjects, and include them along with the original text of my letter when you forward it.
I would personally, be delighted to hear from you as well. If you have specific questions or interests in aspects of the site, please make yourself known .With my warm best wishes to all of you.

Chris Alexander

Adventures at the PRC

At the gate of the Professional Regulations Commission, vendors are always ready to offer you anything you might need. When the guard announces to the people queuing outside the gate, “bawal po ang nakasando at nakatsinelas…!”, a man sidles up to some guys in the queue and says authoritatively, “bos, bos, eto medyas…bawal rin po ang walang medyas…”

If you’ve forgotten to get a cedula, vendors can also offer you one. If you were in a hurry, it probably wouldn’t matter if you paid the residence tax to the city hall or the vendor, as long as they give you that measly piece of paper. It is a step back for you if the people in the PRC discover it’s a fake. Then again, maybe it isn’t and the government has really devised an easier way of making people pay taxes – maybe the vendors are authorized intermediaries?

Across the street, small establishments offer the whole range of goods and services neccessary for those applying for a licensure exam: photocopying, notarization, I.D. photos. This is a big business, as the people applying to the PRC could easily reach up to a thousand a day. A lady shouts, “mam! I.D. picture, five minutes lang!” She leads you to a small cramped corner under a staircase (the “studio”) where the photographer hands you the chalkboard with your name on it. It’s not really ready within five minutes, more like 10 or 20 minutes, but it’s faster than most photo studios. They know people want to get this over with fast.

Inside the grounds of the PRC, they also offer the same services, albeit in a more “professional” manner. People queue (or perhaps the more accurate word is “cluster”) around booths offering digital I.D. photos, mailing envelopes and metered documentary stamps. The I.D. photos are probably P25 pesos more expensive, and the mailing envelope costs three pesos more than what the vendors offer. The three pesos could be for the postage stamp, but if you bought an envelope outside and give it to them, you still pay the same price. You’ve just given them an additional envelope to sell to other people.

Tiger Lily

The application division is a long, rectangular space filled with seats for the applicants. The seats however are too few to accommodate the swelling crowd of people, so the queue spills over to the aisles, blocking the way. Sweaty and a little harassed, you squeeze yourself amidst this throng trying to find the end of this long queue. When you finally get there and settle down to wait, you are jolted by a shrill voice on a loudspeaker: “di ba professionals kayo??? Bakit ang gulo-gulo pa rin ng mga papers niyo pagdating dito? Ilang beses ko nang sinabi na dapat mauuna muna ang birth certificate, then transcript, then diploma…masyado na pala maraming tao ngayon, baka hindi na kayo ma-accommodate…bumalik na lang kayo bukas, ok?”

You crane your head to see who’s speaking, and you see this petite lady with a ponytail and glasses behind the window holding the microphone. Then you remember somebody already told you about her, that woman at the PRC, whom someone aptly named Tiger Lily.

Fortunately your queue doesn’t end at her window. But when (after two hours) you do get to your designated window, the lady in charge says, “ay, architecture..di ko alam to..punta ka sa kanya,” and points (to your horror) to Tiger Lily. You meekly submit your papers, and brace yourself for another tirade on the microphone should she find that your requirements were a little less than perfect. Surprisingly, she rifles quickly through your papers and even makes a little chit-chat: “Kilala mo ba si Ms. Juan? Nag-apply din siya dito, U.P din siya. Wala na bang leather case yung diploma ng U.P. ngayon? Sa amin dati meron…” She actually seems nice. Maybe it’s because you went to the same school. You heave a sigh of relief when she hands you the claim slip. The next guy, however, seems to have a hitch, as an argument erupts between them and she ends up thrusting him back his papers. It’s hard to gauge Tiger Lily’s mood.


Let’s Make Pila

I’m glad I went to U.P., because it has really trained me to be a professional (e.g., how to ‘make pila’ professionally. I pity the freshmen today who enroll through online registration, and didn’t get to experience lining up for Soc. Sci II. When they graduate and get jobs, they will have to queue for their cedula, NBI clearance, TIN number, NSO birth certificate and the PRC registration, and find, to their shock, that their education hasn’t equipped them with the skills needed for the ‘real world’ – like processing papers in government institutions.

They can write articles about it, though, and get famous (or heavily forwarded through email) like Jol Ong, with his tragi-comic adventures at the BIR. For those with not-so-tragic (but nonetheless stressful) government application stories, you keep your questions to yourself, the numerous why’s that crop up while you try to construct a bubble of calm and serenity around you while being pushed and shoved in the queues. Why do you have to line up to five different windows for a single application? Why can’t they provide a spacious, airconditioned space for those who are waiting? Why do you have to pay P20 for a single stamp? Why can’t they put clear directions on where to start? Why do they have to shout?? Why in the world do you have to get a cedula when Andres Bonifacio already declared a century ago that they were useless???

At the end of the day, you’re just thankful you’ve survived. You try to content yourselves with heaving a sigh of relief (or a glass of halo-halo, a nice dinner, or a massage at the spa) after you finally get that piece of paper, the ticket that will give you that opportunity to become a real “professional.”

The Things We Thought and Did Say

The last time that I posted an article here last week, everything was peaceful and quiet, and not a soul was stirring. One week later, a lot of things have happened. New articles have been posted, and comments and counter-comments have been traded. While I think any activity is better than no-activity, I think on some instances, some of these comments may have reached beyond the scope of “architectural discussion”, and have created some sort of uneasy tension has been created around this blogspace.

So before I write another article, I decided to write WHY I am writing an article. I think that at this stage, with all this activity building up in this forum, it is important to lay down MY premises for writing here, lest I be misunderstood with my comments. Call it being defensive. Call it madaldal. Call it excuses. Me? I prefer to simply call it “levelling of expectations” and “setting the record straight”. And take note again, that these are just MY premises, and not the entire “arkiboks”.

The first premise of me writing these articles is that the ideas that are expressed in them are the results of my understanding of the industry. As such as I am young, unexposed, inexperienced and “may gatas pa sa labi”, my perspectives may be shallow, dull, limited and inconsistent with what’s really happening out there. That’s why I’m writing them out. So my thoughts or theories would either be confirmed or be disproved. And after so doing, then at least my knowledge or understanding of the “truth” would be more accurate and comprehensive.

Second, this article or comments of mine are purely for the purposes of scholarly, academic, and professional debate or discussion, if you prefer a more subtle term. They are not meant to be attacks on other people’s character, personality, intellect or writing skills. As another blogger has put it, nag-uusapan lang tayo, and nothing more. Which brings to another premise.

These articles have the end objective of creating some sort of awareness and action in the architecture industry. We have complained too much about our plight as professional architects, yet we do not really do anything about it, let alone talk about it. The only we can ever improve our condition is when we collectively do some positive actions. The only way we can ever do some positive actions is we have sufficient and accurate data to back it up. It’s one thing to raise an opinion. It is another to present factual data. And one way to gather data is through discussions.

The results of such a discussion hopefully would help us become more aware and better informed, and subsequently could help us make better decisions not only for our career, but in general, life. Additionally, if done right, such discussions could help us bond as architects, as professionals, or just simple people of this world with common and even not-so-common beliefs. Because in the end, it is this common bond which can help unite us and then take positive actions together. We do not have to have the same beliefs or preferences in design. It is okay to disagree. But it is important that in the midst of disagreements, we still maintain some sort of respect and objectivity.

It doesn’t mean that when we disagree, we have to have hate or dislike the person who said an opposing point of view. Disagreement, in itself, is a form of communication. And communication, is better than non-communication. Especially, since we’re trying to find some common ground for action in the future to improve our plight as architects or designers.

It’s just like what Rod Tidwell, the football star played by Cuba Gooding Jr., says to Jerry Maguire when they were having this argument in the showers in the movie “Jerry Maguire”, “You think we’re fighting, but I think we’re finally talking.”

Now that that premises have been set, hopefully, we can proceed further to discuss and exchange commentaries. In the future, I hope that all readers and members of this blogspace keep a level-headed mindset and do not take these comments of mine or of others personally. If one disagrees with some of the ideologies, theories or comments of others, then by all means, react, but do so by sticking to the issues, and not engaging in name-calling or personal attacks. True, some of the comments may have been provoked. I myself am guilty of being so, and I’d like to apologize to those that may have been offended. Again, as I’ve said, intention was not to put down people or make others feel that I’m superior.

Rephrasing what like Ka Noel has said in the message corner, if in this small venue of ideas-exchange, with us coming from a common age group, we cannot even establish some sort of objectivity, respect and level-headedness, what more out there in the real world? With this attitude, how can then we expect to really “unite the clans”? We had already become a divided architects of the Philippines even before we could initiate some actions.

As a parting word, I’d like to propose or give some comments on how future articles or comments should be handled to avoid unnecessary conflicts:
1. Be more articulate in your comments, especially if you’re trying to raise a point. Giving one-liner comments exposes oneself to the risk of being labelled as inarticulate or a nuisance. Especially if those phrases are cryptic or have double or even triple meanings. (As in the case of “What’s new?”, with all due apologies to ‘anonymous’) Since you are already logged on to the internet, it wouldn’t hurt to type a few more words to properly express what you feel.

2. In giving comments or counter-comments, stick to the point or issue that was raised and do no not go labelling others of being this or that. First of all, it is rather unethical to call people names in front of a very public audience. Second of all, we do not know the person sufficiently to call him this and that. All of we have are a few words which they have expressed over the internet. Is that enough justification to label him? This then brings me to another suggestion.

3. Put your name or alias. As others have already said, it is their inherent right to remain anonymous. But the mere fact that one is incognito exposes them to the risk of anonymity. One would not have any idea that this “kangaroo jack” is in fact my batchmate or a friend of mine, who I know to kid around a lot. The same set of words can mean a hundred things depending on who said it, when it was said and how was it said. Simple phrases like “Eat my shorts” may seem “antagonistic” if the person who said it is your enemy, or may be just a simple joking comment if the person who said it is your barkada. So eat my shorts and put your alias. Please. Otherwise, you expose yourself again to the risk of batu-batu-sa-langit-ang-matamaan-huwag-maggalit syndrome.


And with that, I’m looking forward to our future conversations (ala Ken Watanabe accent from “The Last Samurai”).

happiness isnt having what u want but wanting what you have... duh

mga boktures! i just wonder if we can juxtapose our personal lifestyles with those of our foreign counterparts... not as how we practice the profession but how we actually live life. i.e. si FLW, nangbabae ganun ba. hindi naman para sabihing mas magaling tayo sa kanila kundi kung paano tayo mas masaya kahit na nagkakaganito ang kalagayan ng arkitektura sa perlas ng silangan.

May I ask those who would say that architecture is their life to refrain from saying anything. In short, shut up. :) joke lang.... sana lang we can know how we are enjoying life. who knows there might be other interests that we can explore outside of the profession that could lighten up our ranting "architecture life". ... okedoki... ill be posting mine soon! tata!

Do Buildings Have "Sex"?

I think it's about time we talked about "sex" here. No, this isn't about buildings making beautiful music together with other buildings although Frank Gehry's "Fred and Ginger" building might make you think otherwise.





This is about if buildings are perceived to have gender. Can a building be said to be male, female or something in between? Here's Jackie Craven's article on the topic. She's a regular at About.com and presents a lot of good topics such as this one.

Are sex and architecture related? Here are four ways we can perceive our built environment:

Male: The building exudes masculine energy. Something about its shape, proportions, color, texture, or sheer mass shouts out, "Uh! Me Tarzan!" Or, perhaps, "Uh! Me Bill Gates!" Example: Any number of castles, such as Goodrich Castle in England. Or, any number of skyscrapers, such as the Empire State Building in New York.





Female: The building feels feminine. There is something womanly about its shape, size, proportions, color, or texture. Maybe you long to crawl inside and curl into a fetal position. Example: The Sydney Opera House. Or, maybe the building is bold and brassy -- Not the sort of girl you'd bring home to your parents. Possible example: Frank Gehry's Guggenheim Museum.





Androgynous: This building has both male and female qualities. Perhaps the texture is male, and the shape female. Or, the color is female, but the proportions... Well, you get the point. Example: Louis Sullivan's Wainwright Building.











Neuter: This poor building is entirely asexual. It lacks any qualities that could be interpreted as male or female. Perhaps it should go into therapy? Example: Sorry... I can't think of any. Can you?

Architects are Sexiest

What’s wrong with being sexy?





Architects have been voted the sexiest male professionals in a survey of women’s ideal partners.

The survey, conducted by the introduction agency Drawing Down the Moon, found that women favoured architects “due to the esteem associated with the profession”.

Architects are seen as being “balanced and rounded individuals who combine a creative approach with a caring, thoughtful disposition”, the survey found. It concluded: “Their ability to cope with pressure of work in a relaxed manner was also deemed to be a significant plus.”

Male architects beat stockbrokers, doctors, film directors and teachers on the top spot.

However female members of the profession fared less well and did not feature in the top 10 out of male preferences.

Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) president David Rock commented that architects were probably unaware of their animal magnetism: “Architects were probably the only group on the list whose self-image is lower than their public image”, he said, but added: “Mind you, you have to question the veracity of any list that includes drama teachers”.

RIBA Architecture Gallery director Alicia Pivaro, who is married to architect Paul Monaghan, said she thought male architects were highly attractive: “Being married to architecture’s Mr Sexy, I would have to agree.”

But she was surprised at the failiure of women architects to appear on the list. “All the ones I know are very sexy”, she said.

Men instead voted PR executives the sexiest profession for females, followed by actresses and journalists.

A Woman's Place

Modern buildings still tend to be designed by men - and it shows.
But what is different about the few buildings designed by
feminist architects? Lucie McCauley explains.

Why Frank Lloyd Wright? Why Le Corbusier?

Why must we allow architects like Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, and other delusional wannabes to set the standard for our practice? These architects belong to societies where individuals are given too much importance. Their contributions to architecture are considerable, but the negative repercussions of their arrogance and individualism can still be felt today.
Frank Lloyd Wright was too selfish to share the credit for organic architecture. Today, its practice is limited only to the fringes of contemporary American architecture. Few architects dare take on the style of the legendary Frank Lloyd Wright and risk being labeled a poor imitator of the great master. As a result, Frank Lloyd Wright's organic architecture almost died with him.
Le Corbusier achieved the opposite, his modernist style is very much alive, but at what cost? Le Corbusier's "single building for all nations and climates" is a dangerous oversimplification of architecture - an oversimplification that made it easier to copy all over the world. Many problems in modern cities can be attributed to this narrow world view. Le Corbusier himself admitted to the shortcomings of his style of modern architecture later on, but it was too little too late.
It is so easy to be seduced by the image of the primadonna architect. It is one thing however, to aspire to their level of competence, and another to imitate their arrogance. "Pride comes before the fall." For architects, however, the fall doesn't end with death. The fall lasts until the very last city plan, the very last building, and the very last residence is wiped from the face of the earth. We must be grateful that not everyone becomes as famous as Le Corbusier or Mies Van der Rohe. Otherwise, people will be burning architects at the stake for making such a mess of the built environment.
Why can't architects be satisfied with working together in a concerted effort? Why must we step all over each other to be recognized as the greatest architect of all time while building very little in the process? Architects account for less than 20% of the built environment, even in developed countries. While we squabble like children fighting over icing on a cake, the rest of society ignores our self-serving calls for a better environment and builds its own shelter without us.

The Howard Roark Syndrome

This is a piece written by Arrol Gellner. I think it's an interesting read especially because of the topic. Who's into architecture that hasn't heard of or been touched in someway by the Ayn Rand novel entitled "The Fountainhead"? The interesting thing about the novel for me is that you can look at it in two ways. One, that it could very well be credited to being the catalyst for many a passionate architects career of building beautiful structures. Or two, that it has brought forth a scourge of arrogant primadonna architects who like playing god. Sadly, it is the latter which is the more prominent image. Anyway, read on:

Ayn Rand's famed novel "The Fountainhead" is the amusingly overwrought tale of an egocentric architect named Howard Roark. On finding that one of his brilliant designs has been tampered with, Roarke becomes so incensed that he blows up the finished building. The novel was eventually made into an even preachier and melodramatic film (no small task, mind you) with the genius architect portrayed by a chronically pained-looking Gary Cooper.

The Roark character, a thinly disguised version of Frank Lloyd Wright, was a mouthpiece for Rand's belief that arrogance and egocentrism are integral components of genius.

Given Rand's fevered devotion to this unlikeable idea, it's no wonder the pious Roark was so insufferable.

Alas, fiction isn't the only place you'll find architects like Howard Roark.

The arrogance of many real-life architects is just as legendary. It's become sort of an endearing character flaw, to be taken with a wink and a nudge: Oh well! You know those architects.

Frank Lloyd Wright remains the undisputed mogul of architectural arrogance, a stature borne out by numberless anecdotes. My personal favorite involves an enraged client who called Wright to complain that the roof was leaking onto her dinner guest. Wright's response: "Tell him to move his chair."

In his later years, Wright frequently engaged in sniping contest with a younger rival named Charles-Edouard Jeanneret, who styled himself Le Corbusier, and who was no slouch in the area of self-importance either. Le Corbusier espoused radical changes in architecture and planning, based on copious theorizing but only a smattering of actual buildings. "I propose one single building for all nations and climates," he proclaimed in 1937.

Wright, with a half century of brilliant work already behind him, dismissed the young architect with the observation, ""He builds a house and then writes six books about it.'"

Old age did not mellow Wright's acerbic with, much less his high opinion of himself. In the 1940s, he gave a talk at a noted school of architecture and declared:

"There are two kinds of architects in the world. There is every other architect, and there is me."

Geniuses can get away with saying such things -- perhaps deservedly so. But unfortunately, arrogance isn't confined to geniuses. It can be found in mediocre architects as well, and too often, the results have been less than humorous. For the better part of the Modernist era, it was this know-it-all attitude that gave us sterile public buildings, look-alike downtowns, and inhumane urban renewal projects.

These well-publicized failures have helped form the unfortunate modern-day image of the architect: equal parts prima donna and buffoon, fussing over minuscule points of aesthetics while bungling vast portions of the client's program.

Reality, of course, lies somewhere in between. Yet, as we enter the 21st century, it's clear that we architects are beginning to stagger under the mantle of "master builder'" -- the literal meaning of "architect'" -- because it's now quite impossible for us to know everything there is to know about building in this ever-more complex world.

That's a problem, because genius is tough to come by, and arrogance won't get us where it used to.

unite the clans... unite us!!!

this is supposed to be a comment on the previous post, nevertheless, read on.

long it may be, i think there is a point in its declaration.

there are people who are adept in writing out their thoughts, some can do better speaking it out.

anyway, i feel that this piece should have to make its way to the academe, to the professional organizations and to the broadsheets' opinion pages. this way, people (who we can assume to be thinkers) would know and be aware of what is actually happening in our profession.

however, aside from commenting and lamenting on the status quo of architecture in the country, we should think progressively and act likewise.

therefore, i pose this question, what is it that we can do to alleviate this pitiful situation? should we rally out on the streets? (outside the uap building? :)), should we just stay put and act like every pathetic Filipino citizen, or should we just get a passport and a plane ticket and get out of this blighted country?...

i wonder when is it that we in the field of architecture can get our act together... isnt that supposed to be the job of the UAP? i wonder, when we can really unite and get out of our own shells and see the bigger situation of life.

nothing else follows.

From Theory To Practice

(Warning: This article is longer than the previous articles, so if you don’t want to read long articles, just look at some other blogspot. Thank you.)

I’ve read this article that my friend Amillah Rodil (ayan, na-edit na) uploaded in the blogger website. The article is entitled “Stop Being Just Designers and Be Problem-Solvers”, and was “borrowed” from the McGraw-Hill Website. In summary, the article states that architects, or designers for that matter, have to start to explore alternative ways to practice their profession, in order to survive in this business. This would be to use their training and experience in managing complex systems to offer a potential client solutions to their problems, instead of just producing a pretty or elegant design. This could be in the form of an integrated multi-agency program to upgrade a city’s infrastructure, to analyzing a corporate distribution system to determine what facilities are needed for efficiency, to assisting an underdeveloped nation in planning a national transportation program. Failure to diversify risks the architect in being considered as just another commodity where the lowest price rules.

*For a complete version of the said article, refer to this link below:
http://enr.construction.com/opinions/editorials/archives/040419.asp

While I agree with the message of the article, I have some reservations whether that theory can actually be put into practice here in the Philippines. And it does not have anything to do with desire. It has more to do with the readiness of the both the architect and society.

It’s because the five (or possibly even more) years of education that a typical architecture graduate undergoes in a typical architecture college is very much biased towards one thing: that architects are supposed to be designers. In each of the 10 (semesters) of a typical arki student’s life, there is at least one design subject. Every semester, students churn out design plates like a factory, with importance more on the final design translation and the presentation technique, rather than the essence of the design.

This can be evidenced by the “visual-element-heavy” presentation of the boards that the students produce. Students spend more time in the production part of the plate, rather than the research and analysis part. Take for example, the recent students who have finished their thesis in UP. I know of some students who spent more time in CAD-ding, doing their models, perspectives and rendering than in literature research, developing methodologies, and analysing the various data at hand.

And this “designer mentality” is not just limited to the academe, but also to the entire industry. The current structure of the architecture industry in the country is also geared towards the fact the architects are designers, or someone who “beautifies” spaces or things, rather than addressing the problem at hand.

And you can’t entirely blame the professional architectural practice for being like that because the society, as it is now, also gives little importance to the theoretical and analysis part of the design process. I’ve heard some of my arki-friends of their experiences in trying to inculcate the “UP concept” way of doing design into practice in their offices. And many have failed, not because they are not eloquent, but rather their colleagues, mentors and clients just do not see the point in “wasting time doing those kind of stuff.”

I’ve heard of one experience of friend of mine from an upper batch who tried to sell her idea to her colleagues of incorporating sunshading techniques on one side of the building because it faced the east. She even went on to do some initial sketches and architectural drawings. But in the end, the idea did not push through as most of her colleagues claimed “that’s what the aircon is for”.

I’ve also my share of experience regarding that. Once, I tried explaining to a potential client why I have to do some background research when he asked me to design a small café, and that I’ll get back to him after a week. He then said that isn’t needed because he already has something in mind and then went on to describe the details, from the furniture, to the layout, to the color scheme, and then asked me to draw them out for him. I then (again) tried to explain to him why we still him to do additional background research so that we will know exactly whether the furniture, the layout, and the color scheme that he outlined fits the desired objective or “mood” for his café. He then answered something like, “Teka, sino ba ang nagbabayad sa iyo?”, and went on to accuse me of being “walang alam”, so that I’m resorting to these “one-week research hiatus” to ask the knowledgeable ones for advice. Luckily for him, I backed out of that project.

In short, society itself is not ready for us, architects, to become “problem solvers”, because most of the times, they think they are the ones who are already solving their own problems, and that we, architects, are just following their whims and wants.

To realize that “vision” of architects as problem solvers entails that the architects have to be proficient not just in typical architectural skills, but also in other aspects such as research, experimentation, writing, humanities, psychology, sociology, urban planning, transportation, economics, business management and human resources development, among others. And while the curriculum offers some sort of introduction to the basic concepts of these topics, it is not enough.

It is not enough because for one, these topics are taught in a semester, or maybe in just a day. Some topics may not even be taught at all, and are left to the students for them to learn on their own. It is also not enough because the instructors themselves do not really know much about the topic, either in theory or in practical application. Some of them do not even come to classes in the first place to deliver the lectures.

A UP arki administrative staff mentioned to me that supposed additional knowledge and education is what the post-graduate program is all about. If you want to know more about the topic, then enrol in the additional courses. That actually is a valid point, except that we come to the question whether a typical practicing architect can physically finish the degree program. Enrolling in a second degree course entails additional time and money. And knowing a typical architect’s workload and worksked, it would quite an effort just to attend the classes, let alone finish the entire degree program.

Additionally, there is also the question of whether one who holds a master’s degree has a significant advantage over those that do not. Will their clientele increase? Will their projects increase? Will their salary increase? Will their percentage of commission increase? The way the architectural profession in this country is structured, academic degree per se has no significant bearing to one’s status. As it is now, it is really your network of contacts and how-low-can-you-get-for-your-commission which affects your progress as an architectural professional. It is not education. It is not your skills. It is not your design sense. It is not even your training or experience.

So we come back to the problem that the society is not really ready for us architects to become problem solvers. Other countries, especially the developed countries, can easily afford to diversify their practice because their professionals have the sufficient technical background to do so. And more importantly, their society is ready for them. The people there know the value of education, experience and training. They are willing to pay more for better quality of their products or services. And they do not settle for mediocrity.

In order for the industry and society to become really “ready”, a lot of structural changes have to be in place. For one, the curriculum has to be restructured to allow for a more diverse training and knowledge base. The Board Exam for Architecture has also to be restructured to complement the changes in the academic topics. The industry has also to be restructured to allow for the entry of “diverse” practices, and make conscious efforts to promote and compliment them. But more importantly, the most important change has to be mindset of the people, both of the people outside and inside of the industry. Society has to learn to value the role of the architects (or for that matter, any designer) and that they should learn to give them their due worth. Architects, on the other hand, should understand this role better, and then properly train themselves so that they will be competent to handle the problems of society.

Without these changes, it would be really hard for architects to become “problem-solvers”, and instead, they’d become just another “commodity in the auction block”. And good thing if the highest bidder wins…. Fact is, it's exactly the opposite.

blogger comments

good news! blogger has just introduced its new commenting system. hope this makes it easier to react to whatever is posted here. i recommend that you use your real name, or at least be consistent in your identities when giving comments. i'm leaving the old commenting system for a week so you can still view comments posted there.

Elections, Government and (A Gandhi) Videotape

Elections is just around the corner. And so like any writer who wishes to be in tune with the times, I decided to write an article about it.

Over the past year, aside from the usual emails poking fun at the politicians as is the customary Filipino tradition, I have also received various emails denouncing and promoting this candidate and that candidate. There are also these open letters addressed to a particular candidate, to the Filipino people and also to Filipinos abroad. There are also these rather informative emails complete with file attachments of the portfolios and credentials of the candidates in a nice matrix form or powerpoint presentation. All of which has the intention of informing and educating the public to “vote wisely”.

But the funny thing about this is that the people who needs the most “informing” or “educating” are people who do not have access to email. They might even never have heard of the word. Now I’m not saying exactly that these people are dumb and stupid. I know of people who are already holders of masters and doctorate degrees who act dumber and more stupid than your average Juan Dela Cruz.

When I say “informing” or “educating” the public, I mean informing and educating the public about the whole electoral process, the democratic form of a republic, how a government should run, how a country should run, what is the government’s role in this, what is our role in this, and what are the implications of our vote to all these things. I’ve yet to see an ad, email or commercial which sincerely tries to explain these issues which I feel are the more important points of consideration during the electoral process.

And what exactly does one mean when one says “vote wisely”? Does this necessarily mean that certain candidates are automatically eliminated? Does this mean that we should choose for this particular candidate because of his/her platform? Does this mean that we should not choose this particular candidate because he doesn’t have the necessary experience or credentials? Because wisdom, if allowed to rule over our psyche, would choose candidates who have sound platforms and programs. It would choose sincere and noble people who have the country’s interests at heart, and not theirs.

For me, “voting wisely” has more to do with the decision-making process that takes place in choosing a particular candidate, and NOT in the actual candidate that we chose. What is the basis when you vote for a particular person? Is it education? Is it experience? Is it their platforms? Is it popularity? Is it the looks? Is it personal financial returns? Is it affinity? Is it vendetta? In the long run, the basis and the attitude that we use during the electoral process has a greater impact on the future of the country.

No matter how good our leaders are, if we do not train ourselves to become good citizens, then nothing is going to change. We will still continue to throw garbage into the sidewalks, the streets, our rivers and into any place just as long as it isn’t our neighborhood. We will still continue to jaywalk and beat the red lights. We will still continue to cheat on our taxes and pay our way around just so we don’t get caught (i.e. lagay). We will still continue to hang around sari-sari stores doing nothing, and expect this politician to give us free homes, free food and free schooling. We will still continue to settle for mediocrity instead of striving to develop our skills and knowledge. We will still continue to waste and splurge our money on extravagant items instead of saving it for a rainy day. We will still continue to look for the easiest way to a buck instead of simply working hard and earn an honest living. We will still continue to bicker around this issue and that issue instead of settling our differences and work towards a common goal.

It’s like a family. The government are our parents, and we are its children. No matter how good our parents is, if we do not listen to them, and continue to behave as badly as we want to be, then nothing’s going to happen. The role of the parents or the government is to provide some guidance and a model, and our role would be to follow them. We cannot continue to expect the government to give us everything we want without exerting any effort in return.

I then remembered a scene from the movie “Gandhi” which has some relevance to the topic. Towards the middle part of the movie, the Indians who were protesting civilly for their independence, suddenly saw a group of British policemen, who were considered to the enemy. They then ganged upon them and as I remember, some of them, maybe even all of them died. When Gandhi learned of this incident, Gandhi became disheartened about continuing for independence of India, and then mentioned something like, “If this is the way we act, as barbaric savages, then we are no different from the people that we seek freedom from, and so we do not deserve our independence.”

In the end, it is our collective effort AFTER the elections which can really change this country. Politicians, being the politicians that they are, play to the public’s favour. If we act like “dumb”, “un-enlightened” and “irresponsible” people, and we show that we can be swayed by popularity and showbizzy gimmicks, then these politicians will continue to feed us lies, to grandstand, to showboat and basically do nothing really to alleviate our conditions. But if act like “mature”, “enlightened”, and “responsible” citizens, and we show that we mean business, then these politicians would stop acting like celebrities and start acting like statesmen. They would have no choice but to shape up or ship out.

So come May 10 and the days after that, I’d just watch movies and the NBA playoff games rather than glue myself to the supposed “widest and most comprehensive nation-wide coverage” that the networks are offering. (Funny how both these giant stations claim to be such.) Call me apolitical or indifferent. In the end, it doesn’t really matter who wins. The future of the country does not really lie in the candidates themselves, but in ourselves. And we only have ourselves to blame, not them, if something goes wrong and we have to resort to yet another EDSA Quatro, Singko, etc. to change the people in power. Because we were the ones who put them in power in the first place.

If we cannot sum up our own courage and wisdom as a society to improve, then we do deserve the kind of government that we have right now.

So vote wisely. But more importantly, act wisely, too.


* This is a non-political ad paid for by the friends of the Filipino people.
UP Diliman, Quezon City