The National Pavilion of the Czech Republic presents the exhibition “The Office for a Non-Precarious Future” at the 18th International Architecture Exhibition of La Biennale di Venezia. The exhibition investigates current pressing issues faced by the architectural profession and especially by young practitioners by asking the initial question: ”How can architects design a better world if they themselves work in a toxic working system?.” The pavilion is commissioned by Helena Huber-Doudová and will present the works of exhibitors Eliška Havla Pomyjová, David Neuhäusl, and Jan Netušil. As the Czech ad Slovak Pavilion at the Giardini della Biennale is under reconstruction, the Czech Republic will exceptionally use the Arsenale in the Artiglierie section as its exhibition space. The Czech and Slovak Pavilion in Giardini will serve only as a digital hub to complement the main presentation.
Unions are a trend among college-educated young people, the New York Timesreports. They seek solidarity—collective leverage—to bring about desired changes that are being resisted. While Amazon and Starbucks get the headlines, younger architects are also organizing. Doing so is urged on by The Architecture Lobby, a group that leans Democratic Socialist. The Manhattan-based firm SHoP was a recent, ultimately unsuccessful target of a group of its employees and a sponsoring trade union.
Business planning is similar to creating design iterations and drafting drawings before starting construction, in the sense that it is the blueprint for a firm's future success. Having a strategic plan provides a basis to evaluate what is happening in real-time against what was expected, make adjustments as necessary, and have a guide to help make better business decisions. Without a plan, how can you coordinate all of the elements and timing required to achieve the desired result? How can you navigate an unpredictable business environment?
Let's review how the business plan with a whole-systems approach can guide us to successful results, as developed by Charrette Venture Group (CVG).
If you attended architecture or design school, there’s probably something you noticed about your fellow classmates- a majority of them were female. And if you have been working in the world of design for a few years, there’s probably something else you’ve noticed as well- that there are fewer women in leadership positions than men. There’s a crisis that architecture has been facing ever since the profession has existed, and it’s that women in leave architecture in high numbers. But what is causing this, and what steps are being taken to ensure that some of design’s best champions positioned to become future industry leaders?
Sustainable design in the United States is for many a sort of Rorschach test. The construction industry is either making steady progress toward the ultimate goal of a carbon-free building sector, or it’s moving entirely too slowly, missing key targets as the ecological clock keeps ticking. The perplexing truth to all of this is: both are ostensibly true. In recent decades the industry has become significantly more energy efficient. We’ve added building stock but flattened the energy curve. The cost of renewables continues to drop. But way more is required, much more quickly. At the same time, huge hurdles remain. Without a renewable grid and stringent energy codes, it’s hard to see how we can fully decarbonize the building sector in even 20 years, let alone at the timeline suggested by increasingly worried climate scientists. It’s the classic good news/bad news scenario (or vice-versa, depending on your mood).
Autodesk Navisworks Manage. Image Cortesía de GoPillar Academy
Currently, specialized technical skills in the use of BIM methodology are in high demand, especially in the field of architecture. Even during the pandemic, job offers in this area have remained relatively stable, especially due to the flexibility of this methodology and the possibility of working collaboratively from remote locations. However, when looking for a new job, those interested in BIM should consider several questions: What am I specialized in? What areas are in highest demand? What type of professional BIM role is the most common?
Most of the practicing architecture is drudgery, and this is rather unfair. As students, architects are given thoughtful prompts about the built environment and its big questions, as well as sole creative reign to answer those questions. That is the only time in the architect’s life when this is the case, and in many ways, this does not adequately prepare the architecture student for the world of architecture, which is a world of drudgery. In reality, architects are not heroes.
The relationship between the business of architecture and the nature of architectural work is fraught. Many celebrated firms have been built on the backs of young and often unpaid labor. To call this practice an open secret would be inaccurate. It isn’t a secret at all; for some firms, it’s standard operating practice. The Architecture Lobby, founded in 2013 by Peggy Deamer, has begun the long and laborious process of addressing these issues. Today, the group has 16 chapters and 450 dues-paying members. (Yearly dues amount to 0.2% of total income, or about $100 for a $50,000 salary.) Recently, I spoke with the Lobby’s national organizer, Dexter Walcott, about the group’s recent efforts, its campaign to unionize the field, the Green New Deal, and the future of work.
Labor gives rise to design. As the aggregate of physical and mental effort used in the creation of goods and services, labor is tied to both what we create and our process. In a field shaped by production, architecture and design depend on labor from a broad range of professionals. But as workers increasingly put in longer hours and traditional measures of security change, questions of labor practices have arisen amid broader conditions of contemporary work culture.
This article was originally published in ArchDaily en Español last October 30, twelve days after the social crisis in Chile escalated. Some ideas of the analysis may feel outdated since some structural reforms were recently announced, but the author decided to keep the original spirit of the piece.
A 4 cent fair increase for the Metro in Santiago sparked mass fare-dodging protests in Chile starting on October 6. Alongside spontaneous street demonstrations, the protests spilled into widespread violence across Santiago during the following days until October 18. That day, the Metro network collapsed, the riots multiplied across the city, and looting and fires were out of control. That night, President Sebastian Piñera declared a state of emergency.
In late October, the Guardian’s architecture critic Oliver Wainwright reported that the United Kingdom’s first architecture union had been formed. The Section of Architecture Workers (UVW-SAW) is a section of the United Voices of the World, a new model of grassroots trade union that supports the expansion of union ideals to professions and sectors which traditionally did not have such representation. The launch of the union, and the reasons behind it, serve as the latest episode in long-running concern over the working conditions faced by architects in the UK and across the world.
https://www.archdaily.com/928339/is-it-time-for-architects-to-unionize-the-uk-says-yesNiall Patrick Walsh
Following a controversy surrounding unpaid internships at the office of Serpentine Pavilion architects Junya Ishigami + Associates, the Serpentine Gallery has ordered the firm to pay all staff who will work on the design of the 2019 pavilion. Criticism of the working conditions of interns at the firm followed an email reportedly seen by The Architects’ Journal, with a prospective intern highlighting a lack of pay, six-day work weeks, and long office hours.
https://www.archdaily.com/913982/serpentine-bans-use-of-unpaid-interns-for-2019-pavilion-design-teamNiall Patrick Walsh
There's an old, weary tune that people sing to caution against being an architect: the long years of academic training, the studio work that takes away from sleep, and the small job market in which too many people are vying for the same positions. When you finally get going, the work is trying as well. Many spend months or even years working on the computer and doing models before seeing any of the designs become concrete. If you're talking about the grind, architects know this well enough from their training, and this time of ceaseless endeavor in the workplace only adds to that despair.
Which is why more and more architects are branching out. Better hours, more interesting opportunities, and a chance to do more than just build models. Furthermore, the skills you learn as an architect, such as being sensitive to space, and being able to grasp the cultural and societal demands of a place, can be put to use in rather interesting ways. Here, 3 editors at ArchDaily talk about being an architect, why they stopped designing buildings, and what they do in their work now.
According to The Economist, 47% of the work done by humans will have been replaced by robots by 2037, even those traditionally associated with university education. While the World Economic Forum estimates that between 2015 and 2020, 7.1 million jobs will be lost around the world, as "artificial intelligence, robotics, nanotechnology and other socio-economic factors replace the need for human employees."
It's not science fiction: the MIT Technology Review warns that the current debate over raising the minimum wage for fast food employees in the United States would accelerate their own automation. On the other hand, Silicon Valley personalities and millionaires like Elon Musk and Richard Branson warned that the impact of automation will force the creation of a universal basic income to compensate not only the massive unemployment that would generate these new technologies but also the hyper-concentration of the global wealth.
One advocate of this idea is the British economist Guy Standing who wrote at the Davos Forum that it "would be a sensible precaution against the possibility of mass displacement by robotization and artificial intelligence," but will automation affect architects? Will we really be replaced by robots?
These are interesting times. There is in the English language a curse, purported to have been translated from the Chinese, but most likely of British origin: “May you live in interesting times.” The meaning, of course, is that it is better to live in uninteresting times of peace and stability than to experience the curse of living in “interesting” times of conflict and flux. Such a fate would only be wished on one’s enemies. So, yes, it might indeed seem that we have had the misfortune to live in very interesting times. We are confronted with multiple, intertwined crises of great complexity: climate change, political instability, mass migrations, hunger, and social polarization, just to name a few.
There are no easy solutions to these complex problems, but there are many energetic, talented, and intelligent people trying to address them, from a range of academic backgrounds. Architects, however, have largely been excluded from the conversation, or have, in fact, chosen to exclude themselves. The general public cannot be expected to turn to architects for solutions to today’s complex problems if we, ourselves, do not insert ourselves into the conversation. Following the examples of heroic figures in architecture, both past and present, we often understand the legitimate path of the architect to be a narrow one, limited to the built environment. After all, one might reason, that is what we’ve been trained to do. Isn’t it?
Late last month Current Affairs published an essay by Brianna Rennix and Nathan J. Robinson titled “Why You Hate Contemporary Architecture: And if you don’t, why you should.” The piece, written in a pseudo-funny Internet lexicon wherein all objects of criticism are “garbage,” is so laden with irony—the poorest of substitutes for analysis—that it is difficult to discern a core argument. Still, I’d like to question the central premise of the piece: that what the authors term “contemporary architecture” is ugly and oppressive, and that liking it is nothing shy of immoral.
Nearly three weeks ago, the editors at ArchDaily reached out to our readers to help us investigate one of the most difficult challenges of architecture education: what do students and teachers think of the 24-hour studio culture that has come to pervade the architecture profession? As we mentioned in our original post, the idea that all-nighters are simply an unavoidable part of an education in architecture has come under fire recently, with some schools attempting to combat them by closing their studios overnight. Is this the right approach to reducing the hours that students are (over)working? If not, what should be done instead? Perhaps there are some people that still think a 24-hour culture can be beneficial to young architects?
The response we got to our question was astonishing, with 141 comments on the article itself and over 100 more on our Facebook post. From this discussion, two overriding themes emerged: firstly, many commenters seemed to believe that architecture students have too much work in the first place; secondly, there was almost complete consensus that closing the studios achieves nothing but moving the problem of all-nighters from the studio to students' homes. For the sake of brevity we've chosen not to include the many responses that mention these themes ideas in this post, but for anyone interested in seeing the evidence of these opinions, we encourage you to visit the original article.
As for the remainder of the comments, we've rounded up some of the most interesting contributions. Find out what 15 commenters had to say about the 24-hour studio culture - taking in arguments for and against it as well as discussing its wider consequences and ways to avoid it - after the break.
