You know those videos on youtube “how to architect"…well, the creator, Mr.Doug Patt is on Tumblr now (@nice to have you around Sir) and he wrights about (another, of many many lists around)…
…Top 20 reasons to be an architect
1. It’s a noble pursuit. It takes years of study and hard work to be a reputable professional.
2. Architecture is prodigious. It is a noun and verb, an object and action. It is ubiquitous. It’s what we make, use and admire. It is everything and nothing and we get to be a part.
3. If it motivates you, architecture involves a wide array of learning and skills: philosophy, sociology, psychology, material science, engineering, mathematics, history, construction, reading, writing, and drawing.
4. The work has a massive impact on the creator. To stand in front of a building and be the reason it exists is rewarding.
5. The impact of a building is like momentum in a sporting event. You can’t see it, but you know it’s there.
6. Architects are generally creative every day. They may not design, but they use their minds more than most.
7. Architecture is a source of fascination. It is mythologized. It makes great dinner party conversation.
8. You have the power to inspire.
9. Architects work with people. If you don’t like people there are ways to hide too.
10. Architecture keeps people safe, i.e. you keep people safe.
11. Architects are like Oz. They remain anonymous and yet provide what people need.
12. It’s a highly prized skill, not always appreciated, but quietly revered. And it’s yours forever.
13. Architects learn every day.
14. Architects take ideas and turn them into buildings.
15. If you don’t want to be an architect, but are trained as one, you can pursue all kinds of other creative professions like product design, drafting, illustration, interior design, graphic design, physical model making, virtual model making, furniture design, landscape architecture, building, etc…
15. You get to draw.
16. You get to learn how things go together, come apart, function and fail.
17. You get to immerse yourself in intellectually stimulating environments like universities where a broad range of thinking is supported, accepted and encouraged.
18. The company you keep with the living and the dead is like non-other. There’s nothing like learning from or sparring with an architect.
19. Architects make something out of nothing.
20. Architects are like great painters. They take something simple like a pear and, with paint, make it more beautiful than it actually is. Just think of a building as a functional box. Then think of how beautiful great architects make them.
The Great Architect Frank Lloyd Wright gave the below mentioned Priceless Pieces of Sage Advice to his Apprentices. The Advices are:-
1. Forget the architecture of the world except as something good in their way and in their time.
2. Do none of you go into architecture to get a living unless you love architecture as a principle at work, for its own sake - prepared to be as true to it as to your mother, your comrade, or yourself.
3. Beware of the architectural school except as the exponent of engineering.
4. Go into the field where you can see the machines and methods at work that make the modern buildings, or stay in construction direct and simple until you can work naturally into building-design from the nature of construction.
5. Immediately begin to form the habit of thinking “Why” concerning any effects that please or displease you.
6. Take nothing for granted as beautiful or ugly, but take every building to pieces, and challenge every feature. Learn to distinguish the curious from the beautiful.
7. Get the habit of analysis,-analysis will in time enable syntheses to become you habit of mind.
8. “Think in simples” as my old master (Louis H. Sullivan) used to say,-meaning to reduce the whole to its parts in simplest terms, getting back to first principles. Do this in order to proceed from generals to particulars and never confuse or confound them or yourself be confounded by them.
9. Abandon as poison the American idea of the “quick turnover.” To get into practice “half-baked” is to sell out your birthright as an architect for a mess of pottage, or to die pretending to be an architect.
10. Take time to prepare. Ten years’ preparation for preliminaries to architectural practice is little enough for any architect who would rise “above the belt” in true architectural appreciation or practice.
11. Then go as far away as possible from home to build your fist buildings. The physician can bury his mistakes,-but the architect can only advise his client to plant vines.
12. Regard it as just as desirable to build a chicken-house as to build a cathedral. The size of the project means little in art, beyond the money-matter. It is the quality of character that really counts. Character may be large in the little or little in the large.
13. Enter no architectural competition under any circumstances except as a novice. No competition ever gave to the world anything worth having in architecture. The jury itself is a picked average. The first thing done by the jury is to go through all the designs and throw out the best and the worst ones so, as an average, it can average upon an average. The net result of any competition is an average by the average of averages.
14. Beware of the shopper for plans. The man who will not grubstake you in prospecting for ideas in his behalf will prove a faithless client.
Attending architecture schools is an unexpected challenge for many students. If you want to become an architect, prepare yourself for how grueling an architecture degree really is. Especially at top architecture schools, studio courses are a rite of passage and a lot of students drop out. For those that make it through, completing a degree in architecture is well worth it. Here are a few ways to cope.
Instructions Difficulty: Challenging
1. Be prepared to spend a good portion of your waking hours in the studio. You have to accept upfront that you are not going to have the ‘typical’ college experience of partying and hanging around the dorm. That said, you are trading it for something that is potentially even more rewarding. Studio work in architecture schools is often engaging and interesting, and you’ll form lifelong bonds with your classmates. But if you absolutely cannot be deprived of the opportunity to perfect your keg stand technique, maybe you need to reconsider your major.
2. Learn to manage your time. Many students don’t grasp this concept until too late, but some learn to treat their architecture courses like a job. Plan to be there at the same time every morning and work consistently. Make a schedule to assure you will complete all the requirements of the project in time for your critique. Keep lists on a daily basis of the items you must accomplish, but be realistic. If you follow this advice, you will avoid the extremely late nights that make architecture schools infamous. You will also avoid the stress involved with rushing to complete your project just in time for a deadline.
3. Set aside some time for yourself. Obviously deadlines are an exception, but try to set aside at least one evening a week to have some fun, and also allow yourself to catch up on some sleep. Take a little time occasionally to go on a walk, do yoga, or get some other form of exercise on a daily basis. You spend a lot of hours sitting in architecture school, so a little physical activity is important.
4. Spend time in your school library flipping through architectural publications. Designing can be intimidating even for an experienced architect, but remember, it’s not necessary to reinvent the wheel. Studying precedents is a great way to learn what works and what doesn’t and how you can apply this knowledge to your own projects.
5. Don’t neglect your other classes. It’s easy to get sucked into the world of architecture studio, but remember you’re getting grades for all those other required credits, too. Think of these other classes as a break from studio. Architectural schools can be very focused, but the best architects are knowledgeable about other subjects as well.
In January 1965, Kenzo Tange received a telegram from the United Nations asking if he would be interested in participating in an international planning competition for the reconstruction of Skopje, the regional capital of the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. A severe earthquake hit the city in July 1963, kiling more than 2,000 people and destroying roughly 65 percent of the buildings in the city. Reconstruction following the earthquake was carried out by the Yugoslavian government with support from foreign countries and international organizations. The United Nations set up a special fund for preparing a master plan for the city. The Greek architectural firm Doxiades Associates and Polish architect Adolf Ciborowski drew up a regional plan for Skopje in 1964, but they left its center city - an approximately two-square kilometer area - open, with the intention of undertaking a more detailed study through an international competition. Tange considered this project significant not only for its international influence, but also because it would make “a model case of urban reconstruction,” so he accepted the invitation.
The competition involved eight design firms, four of them from Yugoslavia and one each from Holland, Italy, Japan and the United States. The Jury awarded the first prize to Tange and the second prize to Yugoslavian architects Radovan Mischevik and Fedor Wenzler, but proposed that the two winning firms work together to develop a final plan. The architects were Kenzo Tange (Japan), Van den Broek and Bakema (Holland), Luigi Piccinato (Italy), Maurice Rotival (USA), Aleksandar Dordevik (Yugoslavia) , Eduard Ravnikar (Yugoslavia), Radovan Mischevik and Fedor Wenzler(Yugoslavia) and Slavko Brezorski(Yugoslavia). The other architects from Tange’s office included Sadao Watanabe and Yoshio Taniguchi.
Therefore a design team was formed, consisting of both Japanese and Yugoslavian architects as well as engineers. Arata Isozaki led the architects team from tange’s office. Tange’s proposal was based on two metaphorical concepts, the “City Gate” and “City Wall.” They referred to the two major elements of the city with distinct characters. The proximity of residential areas to the business district was expected to bring vitality back to the city. The plan for Skopje demonstrated the remarkable continuity of Tange’s approach to city design. The concept of City Gate was based on a linear axis concentrating all urban functions related to communication and business operation. In the middle of this stretch was gigantic gateway structure resembling incoming traffic from regional highways. The axis ended at Republic Square, Skopje’s principal civic space on the River Vardar and surrounded by state and municipal facilities.
The City Gate literally a gate into the city, would be put in the area where a new train station and gateway structure for highway entries to the city would be build similar to the composite transportation center in Le Corbusier’s Ville Contemporaine, the City Gate was characterized by the convergence of all traffic systems - rail, car, bus and pedestrian movement - and served as the point of transition between regional traffic and local traffic. The railway terminal was designed as an underground structure. Occupying different levels above it were automobile parking decks, transit terminals, and pedestrian zones. The transportation center was joined by a central business district known as City Gate Center, to form the city main axis. Along the axis were clusters of buildings include a number of office towers, a library, banks, exhibition halls, cinemas, hotels, shops and restaurants - all connected to the railway and bus terminals with elevated motorways.
Skopje linear axis stared from the transportation terminal also linked central business district and civic square that formed the backbone of the city. Like Tange’s previous urban projects, the plan for Skopje granted the city infrastructure . monumental scale and sophisticated details, organizing various transportation modes on a three-dimensional system. Following the prototype developed in Kofu, architectures in both the City Gate and the City Wall were characterized by the repetitive pattern combining cylindrical towers housing circulations and services and horizontal inhabitable spaces for residential or business uses. What distinguished the Skopje projects from Tange’s earlier schemes, however, lay in the symbolic meaning of the the urban structures, which the architect had started to explore in his Tokyo Bay project but had not fully developed until the Skopje project. The entire city was bound together with the symbolic concepts of its “gate” and “wall,” serving both as programmatic features and metaphors for the urban form. In fact, these metaphors constituted the springboard for the whole design. Tange recalled: We made ample use of this [symbolic] attitude at Skopje. For instance, in applying the name City Gate we not only gave ourselves the hint that we should use something physically gate-like in this area, but we also planted in the mind of the people the understanding that this is the gate through which one enters the city of Skopje. If the design is false to the name, the citizens will reject it.
The City Wall, too, gained fame, and even though at one point the opinion emerged that perhaps the Wall was an obstacle that we should abandon, the people of the city were opposed to doing away with it. They understand the city wall, and it became the center of our image of what symbolizes the city. Now we are told that we definitely should not abandon the Wall. We learned through experience that it is necessary for a variety of symbolic processes to emerge during the operation of structuring.
Tange contended that, through the metaphors of a city with traditional constituents, his plan conveyed meaning beyond the level of physical form and enabled communication with residents and visitors in order to recover the vitality and humanism of the city. Tange’s symbolic return to the classical vocabulary of urban form recaptured some characteristics of Louis Kahn’s 1961 plan for Center City Philadelphia. Kahn called his project “Viaduct Architecture.” The plan developed from his studies of traffic patterns and earlier projects for Philadelphia, and it envisioned that the whole city would be surrounded by a multilevel highway loop (the “viaduct”). The concept of viaduct reflected an abstract mastery of Roman forms, as Kahn wrote: “This architecture of movement may be compared to the Viaduct architecture of Rome which was of a scale and consistency different from the architects of of other useful buildings. The viaducts in his plan for Philadelphia, carrying high-speed automobile traffic, defined the boundary of the modern city while allowing unencumbered connection between areas on both sides of the boundary. Several gigantic parking towers standing beside the viaducts served as gateways to the city. Kahn believed that the city would flourish with the viaducts serving automotive traffic and protecting downtown from the invasion of incoming traffic flows. Like Kahn, Tange used the metaphors of classical form to to reinterpret modern infrastructure, providing those large- scale constructions with legibility and cultural significance. Transitions in Tange’s attitudes toward historical context and locality can be detected between his two monumental plans: the 1960 Plan for Tokyo and the 1965 Plan for Skopje. The Tokyo project was dominated by a strong forward-looking aspiration. Tange criticized the city’s existing organization as a “closed structure” which belonged to a “medieval town,” obsolete and dysfunctional for a city of Tokyo’s magnitude. In Skopje, the architect turned to the construction of a “City Gate” and a “City Wall,” seeking to recover the meaning of a traditional town. The urban scene in Skopje after the violent earthquake could not be less chaotic than the urban scene in Tokyo in 1960. However, instead of rebuilding the city, Tange tried to preserve the remaining structures in Skopje and used the City Wall to frame the historic areas. He also treated the city’s geographical characteristics in a delicate manner.
In fact, the competition jury applauded Tange’s scheme for its successful “incorporation of Kale Hill into the composition of the center” and the “integration of the left and right banks of the Vardar [River] by their development with public buildings, shops, bridges, and pedestrian squares and platforms.” Tange’s transition to a more sophisticated approach to history and local conditions could be justified by the fact that the Skopje plan was proposed for actual implementation, rather than being a theoretical project like the Tokyo Bay Plan. It was also certain, however, that by turning to historical metaphor and localism, Tangedemonstrated his awareness of the cultural implication of urban structures and attempted to expand his language of urban design through employment of methaphorical and symbolic elements.
In Tange’s vision, Skopje remained a planned city under an architect’s complete control. He later recalled that, when working on the Skopje project, he had to make a decision between two approaches to formulating the building guidelines. The first approach would “lean strongly in the direction of allowing the city to grow and alter in a dynamic and recurrent pattern;” the planner’s responsibility would mainly involve “establishing space usage and wall lines that guarantee open spaces and flow,” leaving other things for free construction and urban growth. With the second approach, “an ultimate form for the whole is designed on a virtually constitutional basis and all development is made to agree with this form;” this method would “make it possible to produce a total image. Tange chose the second approach because he felt that the Skopje project was less about stimulating the growth and redevelopment of a living city than it was about establishing a total image around which a devastated city could be resurrected.
Political factors in Skopje also influenced Tange’s decision. The architect later wrote: “Yugoslavia is a Socialist country in which land is not privately held, the city government had sufficient power to make it possible to introduce our total plan.” He believed public land ownership was on his side in realizing his grand plan . Tange’s comment to a certain extent echoed Le Corbusier’s admiration of the authority of the Soviet Union in the interwar period, to which he dedicated his Ville radieuse. In Japan, dispersed private land ownership made it difficult to carry out large-scale urban redevelopments within existing political parameters. Tange’s and the Metabolists urban projects thus remained theoretical speculations. Just as Le Corbusier had turned to Soviet Russia.
Tange found Skopje a promising land to realize the idea of a total plan that he had put toward theoretical proposals for Tokyo. Tange concepts of City Gate and City Wall persisted in all.
Tange noted that the urban planing authority of Skopje required architects of individual buildings to abide by the master plan and the building guidelines even in building designed by Tange. This gigantic building included a railway station with a vast elevated platform fifteen meters above the ground. Underneath was a bus station. It became a landmark of the new Skopje, but it was often criticized for being too grand for a relatively modest city of only 430.000 residents. Nevertheless, Tange’s plan played an important role in guiding the process of Skopje’s reconstruction, which was a remarkable success in terms of its efficiency and international cooperation. The city soon regained its vitality and enjoyed an economic boom. Under the guidelines framed by the planning team, the new buildings tended to be “progressive” in design style, a tone set by Tange’s response to the demand of “a new architecture for a new revolutionary society.”
Ooo I feel so sorry for all you architecture Mac users. Really. I acctually don’t know. I am a Windows guy and that works out great when choosing an architectural software tool. Almost all the apps are made for Windows and if you are lucky enough, there will be a Mac version.
I’ve seen people use the Mac AutoCAD + some unknown 3D modeling software (even sometimes web based app) + Photoshop, but is a struggle. Others put virtual engines on their Macs that enable Windows apps to run, or install “side by side” Windows OS.
ArchiCAD 15 has a Mac support now. You could go with that. It is a nice software. You could use SketchUp, I’ve seen people do some great work with this app, but I’ve always found it confusing. Also I’ve heard of VectorWorks, but never used it, so I can’t tell you anything. I know that Rhino will be releasing a Mac version soon. And that will be very nice. And there were some rumors on Mac 3ds Max release, but nothing official.
what program do you usually to proyect your floor plans? autocad? revit? what are your opinios of autocad. do you think it's obsolete
I’ve first started with AutoCAD Architecture. First only 2D, but that turned out to be too much of a “long walk” process. Then went to AutoCAD 3D, it was nice, but I was never satisfied with the renderings. And I didn’t know how to use 3ds Max. Then I’ve discovered ArchiCAD and it turned out great. Fast work, fast renders, but you don’t have the freedom. I am convinced that Revit is based on ArchiCAD. And if you are using Revit, you know of the problem of creating curved surfaces and sort of sci architecture. Then I’ve tried Revit and it was nice, but I’ve figured out that is more for a big team collaboration. But then I’ve met Rhino. And it’s great. It has many plugins that ease your work, like Grasshopper, Armadillo, T-Splines etc. For creating floorplans, sections, elevations, I use the VisualARQ plug in. It add architectural futures, like walls, columns, beams, slabs, roofs, much like Revit. I get the stuff I need and then transfer them in AutoCAD to do some “makeup” on them, before plotting. On the rendering engines - It supports Vray 1.5 (2.0 will come with Rhino5), Brazil (great quality, as Vray) and many more. For construction details and some other line based drawings, I still use AutoCAD. I’ve used 3ds Max + AutoCAD Architecture at one point, but It was time consuming. And always use Photoshop for some other form of representation, or to add your final touches on your presentation.
My opinion on AutoCAD is that it’s great, but it will be relapsed by the BIM software like Revit, ArchiCAD and many others.
Today, there are many types of silicon glues that can join these two materials together, but the most secure solution, especially if you are going exterior, is screws.
It’s an example for a facade. In my case (from left to right) there are wood panels, but the principle is the same for metal. The screws go instead in metal bolts, they are screwed in wooden cube (replacing the bolts). Do you get me?
Top 10 Undergraduate Architecture Schools 1. Cornell University 2. University of Texas 3. Virginia Polytechnic institute and State University 4. California Polytechnic State University 5. Rice University 6. Rhode Island School of Design 7. Southern California Institute of Architecture 7. Syracuse University 9. Iowa State University 10. Pratt Institute
Great. Thanks hyperform. But as I can see, all these are in America. Not so sure that all the best architecture schools are in the USA. I know that Spain, Japan, UK and France have also some great arch schools.
I really don't think that list is a very good one. I know you're just relaying the information of a source, but the AA as mentioned and Sci-Arc, Cornell and IaaC as well as numerous other schools which would out-rank many - but of course not all - of those institutions.
The list is not written by me, or neither I have any influence on the list. This list is made by architects already in the business and I believe that they’ve seen many students that walk out of these universities and the degree of their knowledge and developed design process. This is a list of best universities. A post graduate studies. Where “the boys, become men”. Where the little origami students learn real architecture.
what's the best architectural school in the world?
Wow, definitely not mine :) I’ve seen many lists on the subject and although I am a big supporter of the idea that - architecture schools don’t make good architects, the architect himself has to evolve and do his own great work and study from his own designs, have a great knowledge on construction and simply have that X factor. (Many of the great masters of the past never went to architecture school) … back on your question, the most international and complete list (not rated) with the specialties of each school: - British University in Dubai, UAE - Cardiff University, Wales - Royal melbourne INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (RMIT), Australia - University of Cambridge, UK - University College of London, UK - Columbia University, New York, USA - Massachusetts INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BOSTON, USA - The American University of Sharjah, UAE - Waseda University, Japan And here is the whole article by constructionweekonline.com in 5 pages
<p>I believe you are practicing architect correct? I was just wondering, since I finish up my studies this year, and start looking for jobs in the architectural world again (I worked at Coop-Himmelb(l)au on my year out) , what you would look for in a job application? or CV/Portfolio tips. Cheers.</p>
Hey meanwhilesghost, good question,
Yep, I am an architect with a modest practice. Off the top of my head here’s a list of some of my likes and dislikes when receiving work applications:
Be succinct. Keep your application short and sweet, quality, not quantity.
Show your range, have variety, don’t present yourself as a one trick pony.
I suggest snail mail over e-mail. e-mail is easy to dismiss, easy to lose and doesn’t take any real effort. Hard copies can provide a chance to show off.
Don’t send e-mail with 20mb + of attachment material
If you really must present a lot of work, have your own domain and post the work there. A tumblr would be fine by me though I’ve never seen it.
If you decide to ignore my advice and send e-mail anyway, at least take the time to make a PDF. Keep it small.
I like it when it’s clear that the application is written well and shows care and thought.
I ignore the application when it places a burden on me. ie. “please call me to set up an interview”. Yes, this really happens.
If you do get an interview do not expect the company/architect to work their schedule around yours. Take what you can get and adjust your schedule as needed. I have had a number of recent applicants act as though I was putting them out because they couldn’t meet when they wanted. In the end I didn’t interview any of them.
Quality drawings and artwork are good. I prefer people who can draw with a pencil. People who can draw well generally understand 3d space.
Don’t be afraid to drop by the office and introduce yourself. I prefer this because I can get a feel for the person behind all the statistics.
Spell correctly, especially peoples names…..
Don’t send an application by e-mail and cc: all the other offices you are interested in.
Maybe it sounds harsh but don’t write on and on about yourself and how wonderful you are. Of course you think you are wonderful. Instead I suggest letting your presentation explain what you are capable of. It shows a different kind of confidence.
Review the work of the company or practice you are applying to before applying so that you can talk about their work and ask questions if the opportunity arises.
What have you built?
What have you designed that was built?
Edit. Don’t show up to an interview with a 100 page roll of drawings for a 30 story building then open it to show me the reception desk you worked on with 3 other people.
Only present work that you have made significant contribution on. It doesn’t look good if/when you have to admit that all you really did on the $3,000,000 house you just presented is take notes at meetings near the end of construction.
Understand the current market and fair market value. After all, I’m probably not going to hire you if you ask me to pay you more money than I already pay myself, right?
That’s all I have for now….If I think of any others I’ll add them later. Cheers.
If Architects designed highways, they would be straight, scenic, and would take you somewhat close to your destination. I mean, you’d arrive where you probably should be, even though it might not be where you thought you wanted to go. Ah, but the view….
If Architects designed cruise ships they would be sleek, and dynamic, and inspire awe as they drifted aimlessly ashore into the rocks.
If Architects taught kindergarten kids, Kindergarten kids would be more sullen.
If Architects ran the National Parks, geysers would be more predictable, and bears would probably die.
If Architects designed artificial limbs, they would only be available in pairs, regardless of the needs of the patient.
If Architects liked birds, birds would be considered more cool.
If Architects dug holes, the holes would be perfectly square, and filled with concrete. The concrete would be polished to a fine luster. Architects would get upset if you told them they look like tombstones.
If Architects were given stars on Hollywood Blvd., they would want to use a straight edge when they write their name, and they wouldn’t want to put their hands in the wet concrete.
If Architects were to solve global warming, it would be surprising, and strikingly elegant.
If Architects made cookies, they would be perfectly round, appealing in texture and color, and inedible.
If Architects took vacations in the south of France, they’d keep business cards in the mesh pocket inside their swim trunks.
If Architects flew airplanes, the windows would be operable, and the top would be glazed and retractable. The seats would be made of 90% recycled materials. The barf bags would be the same.
If Architects helped you move into your new house, they would leave half of your furniture in the truck, and stubbornly refuse to “release” it.
If Architects reworked the tax code, there would be incentives for minimalism, however, the forms would be more complicated.
If Architects started wars, they would stick with them until they forgot why they were fighting, then they would blame their Structural Engineer.
If Architects ran the federal reserve, a small hole would appear in the fabric of time, all of the coins under our couch cushions would slip into this hole. Seven hours later Carl Sagan would come back to life and instantly suffer an aneurysm.