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.