Our scape is currently overwhelmed with physical structures that act as obstructive forces towards humanity-oriented progress. The globalised format of our cities has dominated its roots on other aspects of architecture, including education. Hence, in some schools, architectural education follows this emerging imagery of the market, and not the other way around. This has led to a critical phenomenon of poor development of architectural pedagogy, i.e. lack of individual and collective creativity.
Do you think that architectural schools should shift its methodology towards not building anymore? Should they focus more on creating open spaces and flexible structures?
Perhaps the methodology should not be shifted but rather diversified. Since fronts where architecture is being utilized is not replacing physical building but adding digital scapes. I believe architectural education should acknowledge that physical building is only one application in a variation of possible methodologies. Especially now that virtual monuments, with their flexible bearings, are gaining popularity.
While not building would be not a solution to the problem of uninhibited development, architects will have to design and build using sutainable materials in sync with the local environment.
Hello Taher Abdel-Ghani
I think you make a good point about change of emphasis. I wonder if that should be about being more environmentally-friendly, perhaps in keeping with Saurabh Sinha and going on another point there, that it has to be in keeping with the local environment and customs.
It is believed that the appearance of artificial premises appeared about 50 thousand years ago. The mass professional education of architects as a specialist which useful to effectively change the material environment began in the century before last. In such a short period, the duration of the basic education of an architect has almost halved, which did not save the profession. In last century some country governments had begun to closed architectural schools. Nowadays, everyone must be ready for the change of the subject of the architect's education in the new conditions of the near future.
What an interesting question! As usual, I agree with the previous answers and would add that we have dynamic complex problems to solve, a growing worldwide population, how we are going to house everyone which probably means the increase of high-rise city scapes, which means, or should mean, equitable distribution and provision of resources for all, provision of variety of resources, places of entertainment, scientific institutions, arts facilities, places of worship, nonstandardisation, avoiding problems of 'big brother', 'brave new world', consideration of minorities, consideration of the natural environment, intelligent collective discussion, flexible management of cooperative interactive organisations and governments, all ideally under the banner of the 17 SDGs of the United Nations and so on.
Dear Grant Gover. All the problems you listed are solved by psychologists, sociologists, economists, anthropologists, geographers and land surveyors or environmentalists who are waiting for a response to their spatial proposals from politicians and investors. Of course, a person capable of creating a material cover for these proposals can earn a living, if the market adequately appreciates his visual vision and virtual representation. Is it worth spending three or four years at the university to get a degree in "mega-makeup artist"?
Lets not be vague here. We are talking academics and not obscure moral ventures. Architects do not understand urbanism, its equivalent to doctors void of human anatomy. Schools should teach urbanism' and only after 3 years, can venture into personal artistic fields, a constant human need.
No I m not agree with you , architecture is about science and art ,without buildings there is no architecture vice versa.schools of architecture must focus on the marked demand to,specially in this digital era and follows its requirements.
Anwaar, you want everything and thats nice, only impossible. Academy must have priorities and not a bit of everything. Sorry
I’m not sure about specific social policy programs that have significantly slowed down the ageing of the population. However, there are many policies and programs that aim to improve the health and well-being of older adults. Some examples include:
forget it. the global problem is one of dispertion and isolation. School shoul teach urban planning and not design. Design is obvious and solved in books and computers. Urbanity that is connectivity is not.
It is a complex problem. From a world perspective, where we are building on premium land that needs balancing with ecology, flora and fauna, nature needed for preservation of species, diversity, health and patent issues coupled with climate change, then the answer is no. From a dynamic evolutionary point of view we need to take into account all world issues, where—apart from man's insistence upon self destruction rather than intelligent problem solving—the main issues are adaptation to climate change and designing cities to cope with increased population and the plethora of needs of such populations including catering for minorities as well as the majority. Excellence of creative architectural design is an imperative. Where design is desultory it is depressing. We need all the best of mankind's creative powers to consider all problems and deal with them intelligently, including the delicate balancing between the need to build and the need to look after this wonderful world (citing Louis Armstrong).
Design is not an issue today; Ecology etc. with all knds of moral problems has nothing to do with theplan we must envisage urgently' we are conserned first of all with humans. \thos are losing contact with each other' they are dispersing' with the computer and television into the unknow. The first thing is the human contact. We have to teach urban planning' design of buildings is well known and lost its singularity. School can teach one thing: humqan contact with urbanism/
Dear Taher Abdel-Ghani,
In the 20s of the last century, the government of the former USSR decided that it was necessary to build large industrial buildings, and there were enough residential premises since any family could be accommodated in a room of 20 m2. The result was work camp-prisons.
It is a mistake to think that the architect's task is to create flexible sculpture structures, decorative installations, or real or virtual stages for fantastic movies. This idea has caused harm but has not yet destroyed the specialty of architecture, leading to the closure of many independent architectural schools and their merger with art schools and civil engineering faculties throughout Europe, forgetting that this discipline has humanitarian roots closely related to the country's politics. Remove this basis and you will not have Imhotep, Vitruvius, or Gropius. As long as our civilization exists, architects will have to decide how to change the premises of our lives, based on knowledge of the significance of the role of a politician, businessman, or soldier.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics