This memorandum is either way late or way early, but if you should happen to find yourself putting together a portfolio any time soon, take heed:
In his article “Against Architectural Animation,” Neil Spiller discusses the consequence of using animation in the field of architecture. As a person who has looked through many student portfolios in his time, he becomes worried when a student presents him with digital material, as opposed to drawings. Though Spiller himself is a technology enthusiast, stating the many benefits technology has for architecture, he is worried about the use of animation in architecture. He fears that architects are becoming more concerned with making a good animation, rather than creating good spaces.
Architects in today’s world are limited by how new applications of animation are in architecture. The typical animation software was meant for film and graphics industries, not architecture. In a sense, by using this software, and architect is asking an apple to be an orange. This leads to a tendency for those using the software to play around more with the features of the software, as opposed to the architectural forms they are attempting to represent. These users “push all the buttons at once” to see what happens, and labels it as a final product. Such representations do nothing to give another insight into architectural form. They may be pretty to look at, but they say nothing; they are mindless eye candy, rotting away the mind as sweets do one’s teeth.
(And I recommend reading the responses therein as well.)
I just read this article in the New York Times by John Schwartz called, “Where Science and Design Collide, a Few Weird Sights to Behold.”
This is what really caught my eye (I just had to show you):

I just read this article by John King in the San Francisco Chronicle called “Architect John Peterson building goodwill.”
Public Architecture has five employees. The spacious loft it shares with four other businesses is upstairs from a fetish-gear boutique.
But if the firm’s size and location are humble, its ideas are big - and one of them is beginning to transform the architectural profession.
“There’s a great desire among architects to do work that’s socially relevant,” says John Peterson. “We’re talking about improving public life for everybody.”
Peterson is founder of Public Architecture, a 5-year-old nonprofit in San Francisco best known for its Scraphouse - an inhabitable structure that stood for four days in 2005 across from City Hall and included walls made of computer keyboards and old telephone books. But the firm’s larger impact involves a different sort of vision: to turn the concept of pro bono work into an industry norm.
Begun in 2005, the program dubbed the 1% Solution aims at getting architectural firms to contribute 1 percent of their billable hours annually to socially responsible initiatives. In other words, making it standard practice to allocate time and staff to do the right thing.
Yes, architects have embraced worthy causes in the past. But 1% Solution’s blueprint for ongoing commitment is more in line with the legal industry, where the American Bar Association for decades has emphasized the importance of pro bono efforts.
The results so far are heartening. As of January, 290 firms in 35 states have pledged to take part. And Public Architecture isn’t just trying to guilt-trip its peers. The firm also has assembled a database of nonprofit organizations with specific needs that a design firm can address, whether it’s a full building renovation or focused interior design.
“The brilliant component of this was the linkage - a systematic network to match experience with need,” says R.K. Stewart. An associate principal in the San Francisco office of Perkins + Will, Stewart last year was president of the American Institute of Architects. The AIA recently awarded Public Architecture a $115,000 grant to expand its 1 percent effort.
“We started fishing around for organizations that do things like this (in architecture) and couldn’t find any,” Peterson recalls. “I have sporadic sleep habits, and one time when I was up in the middle of the night I thought, ‘This is worth taking on.’ “
If methodical pro bono work does become part of the architectural persona - along with hip eyeglasses and a tendency toward words like “porosity” - then Peterson is an unlikely instigator.
Peterson, 44, arrived here in 1991 with his “better half,” landscape architect Carol Souza: “She was ready to get out of Cambridge (Massachusetts), I said sure, and we drove west looking for a place to light.” They arrived in the Bay Area, liked it and found a way to stay.
Peterson set up Peterson Architects, specializing in private homes. But when he designed a project across from the Glen Park BART station with housing, a library, supermarket and sleek contemporary design, neighbors balked at the modern look. The project ended up in another office that rolled out the more traditional building that opened last year.
Instead of making Peterson bitter, the fuss lit a spark.
“I found it engaging … it broadened our thinking about who our ‘client’ was,” Peterson recalls. “I was exposed to my own limitations at how I present my architectural ideas, but we also started thinking about all these people we never meet.”
So Peterson’s staff looked for ways to connect with everyday people and found a cause close at hand. Their office is on a stretch of Folsom Street that offers six lanes of asphalt but precious little in the way of amenities for neighborhood workers and residents. The firm whipped up conceptual schemes to replace some of the blacktop with landscaped oases; the idea was a hit, and the first small plaza should be constructed this fall outside the BrainWash Cafe/Laundromat.
There’s also talk with several municipalities about building shelters for day laborers who line streets looking for work. As for the Scraphouse, a wry critique of the culture of disposability, it lives on in a documentary film.
“John’s incredibly optimistic,” says David Meckel, director of research and planning at California College of the Arts and a member of Public Architecture’s board of directors. “He doesn’t focus on why something won’t work. It’s about incrementally trying out ideas and seeing if they have resonance.”
With 1% Solution, Public Architecture definitely struck a chord. The converts aren’t just studios with a progressive bent. Local participants include Field Paoli, a 70-member firm, and there’s financial support from such national players as Hammell Green and Abrahamson, which has 515 employees in six offices.
It helps that Peterson and his staff emphasize pragmatics; for instance, the marketing campaign stresses that pro bono projects “can become portfolio pieces that help firms gain entry to new design markets.”
“We don’t want to be an organization that appeals only to the true believers,” Peterson explains. “We need to make the case to nonprofits that good design thinking can advance their cause, and to architects that creative, aggressive pro bono work can be healthy for their business.”
Speaking of business, Peterson’s turning more of his attention these days back to the firm that bears his name. Doing good goes only so far.
“There was a point when I was putting too much time into Public Architecture, and it almost ruined us,” Peterson says. “Our accountant made that clear.”
Read more about Public Architecture’s One Percent
As an intern at a LEED consulting company, I know that the process of bringing all the players (the architect, the owner, the mechanical engineer, the landscape architect, the plumbing engineer, the general contractor…) up to speed on their role in the certification process, not to mention the verification of systems, can be pretty expensive.
Especially if you’re not building a 300-room hotel with a bar and a restaurant – but rather, just a single family home.
LEED for Homes is still in beta. But there’s already (another) system for racking up green points.
The National Association of Home Builders, which represents more than 230,000 U.S. housebuilding companies, announced its new program, calling it “voluntary, market-driven, flexible and affordable” and stressed that the certification paperwork would cost less than $500 per home.
That’s a good deal. But they still have much work to do if they want to compete with LEED.
First of all, it is not yet a national standard, since NAHB has yet to complete the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Second, the third-party verifiers have yet to be certified by the NAHB Research Center. So it will likely be the summer of 2008 before all the pieces are in place.
And there’s plenty of other competing accountability systems as well.
As many of you may know, nothing is very centrally directed in the U.S. For example, beyond the three national programs mentioned, there are more than 60 local green home rating systems, some of them very well established, such as the City of Austin, Texas, and the EarthCraft Home rating system in Georgia (and three other southeastern states). There is also an Environments for Living standard supported by General Electric, one of the largest seller of Energy Star home appliances, and a Health House standard from the respected American Lung Association.
The author of the article, Jerry Yudelson, predicts:
The U.S. Green Building Council’s announced goal is one million new certified green homes by the end of 2010. With the deep home building slump in the U.S., this would require nearly two-thirds of all new single-family homes built from 2008 through 2010 to be green certified. While this is unlikely to happen, my own prediction is that green homes will storm the market in the next three years and are likely to command a 20 percent market share by 2010.
If I were a seller of energy-efficient and resource-conserving products technologies and building systems, I would start investigating the U.S. green home market as a dynamic sales growth opportunity.
I just read this article in Reuters called “U.S. construction activity indicator sinks-AIA.”
NEW YORK, March 19 (Reuters) - The deteriorating housing market and sluggish economy slammed U.S. commercial construction in February, according to an architect trade group’s leading indicator of nonresidential building activity released on Wednesday.
The American Institute of Architects’ Architecture Billings Index tumbled to 41.8 for the month, its lowest level since October 2001, and down from 50.7 in January, the second consecutive monthly decline.
Any score below 50 shows a decrease in billings, a measure of time and effort spent on a project.
“This is a clear indication that there could be tougher times ahead for design firms and a noticeable slowdown in commercial construction projects coming online in the foreseeable future,” said AIA Chief Economist Kermit Baker in a statement.
The ABI reflects a nine-months-to-a-year lag time between architecture billings and construction spending, making it a leading indicator of construction activity.
Regionally, the weakest reading was in the Midwest, where the index stood at 42.6, while demand was strongest in the Northeast, with a reading of 51.5.
Nonresidential building has held up relatively well over the past two years, even as the U.S. housing market has slumped.
So what’s an architect to do?
“The one bright spot,” Baker said, “continues to be the institution sector with continued positive conditions for construction projects such as schools, hospitals and government buildings.”
The ABI rating for the institutional sector was 54.9.
I just read about LivingHomes’ Pre Fab multiple unit housing in Architectural Record.

LivingHomes’s sustainability requirements call for water efficiency and the use of recycled and VOC-free materials and finishes. Moreover, the higher density of multifamily development—particularly in those urban infill situations—is inherently green. The townhouses’ unique construction platform also achieves the dual benefits of minimizing labor cost and environmental impact: bathrooms and kitchen modules hook into a modular utility core, as do light-gauge-steel-frame panels that comprise the other rooms. These panels integrate the building envelope, structure, mechanicals, and interior finishes into a single component.

New York
Thursday, April 3: The Pratt Institute presents a day-long symposium on the history and future of prefab architecture, with lectures by MoMA’s chief architecture and design curator Barry Bergdoll and other experts in the field. 8 a.m.-7 p.m.; Higgins Hall, 60 St. James Pl., Brooklyn; (908) 781-6420
Chicago
Thursday, April 3: Architectural historian Thomas Hines gives a talk titled The Other Hollywood, in which he discusses the modernist homes designed by Richard Neutra and Lloyd Wright (Frank’s son) for film stars. 6-7 p.m.; The Art Institute of Chicago,111 South Michigan Ave.; (312) 443-3600
Los Angeles
Sunday, April 6: Talk about a dynamic duo: Architect Frank Gehry and Leon Botstein, music director of the American Symphony Orchestra, share the stage at tonight’s discussion. 2 p.m. Hammer Museum, 10899 Wilshire Blvd.; (310) 443-7000
Enter your email address below to be notified.
After you click Sumbit, you'll simply come right back to this page. Be assured that your email address has indeed gone through. (I've had a few people enter their email address multiple times.)
After you click Submit, you'll come right back to the blog!
* Unless you spam me.
Created by Contact Form Generator
Know of some others I can add here? Let me know. Have you already visited some of these places...or planning on it? Let me know and I will feature your story and your photos here!
I am starting a new kind of architecture school. Unlike most architecture schools, you wouldn't have to submit GRE scores or good grades or letters of recommendation. You wouldn't have to put the rest of your life on hold for 3 to 5 years. You wouldn't have to accrue tens of thousands of dollars in debt. At my architecture school, anyone could come for a few weeks and learn how to build a house with their own two hands. My teachers would take skills and concepts from some of these other workshops I've listed above... except classes would be held year-round to make it easy to fit into your schedule. I would have a number of different campuses around the country that would teach building designs appropriate to the local climate. And I need your help. Can you donate land for a campus? Can you dotate books for a library? Can you teach a workshop? Can you provide start-up capital? Let me know.
Need more? Visit our bookstore