Photography: Tony Less Photography

by Annabel Koeck

Are design tools and technologies at the behest of the graduate or are they its downfall? Will architecture practices further succumb to the need for speed? Annabel Koeck responds to Joanne Taylor’s article on ‘Design Tools and the Urgency of Architecture’.

A recently released report revealing that only one in forty Australian architecture practices seeks new tools and design methods has got this graduate questioning how it is that one’s employment perspectives are so limited by software knowledge, and which software determines not only the practice, but your role in that practice. One of our online contributing editorial assistants, Joanne Taylor, conducted research into “the tools used within the design process and the methods applied to them” in order to understand if tools are having an in?uence on design, culminating the intriguing proposition: is the architecture industry caged by software technologies?

When interviewing 10 recognised London-based architecture ?rms, it was found that only 1 practice offered positions based on the graduate’s excellence in the ?eld, undeterred by what software they may or may not know. In an industry where the graduate is pitted against drafting technicians and investing personal time to apply value to production, the profession needs to consider the costs of a one-week CAD training course with that of a workforce with incredibly limited skills. With architecture’s archaic mentorship programs, if any, how will graduates develop into adequate architects?

Yes, sadly, a graduate is often merely a body to be used and abused, but when did it become more necessary to have IT skills as opposed to design skills? Architecture seems to be the only profession in which IT experience trumps academic excellence. This is severely limiting the introduction of critical and creative thinkers into existing architecture practices, and appears rather short-sighted. Do we want our critical thinkers taking refuge in educational institutions? It could be argued that we should be calling for a return to principles ?rst, Grasshopper scripting second.

There is a prevailing view among Australian graduates that to enter practice is to sacri?ce, or put on hold, the skills that have taken five years acquiring as a creative and critical thinker. To ?ll this gap there are ever increasing numbers of young professionals who actively seek university involvement whilst practising. It appears that in the context of Australian contemporary practice what we are being taught translates not into a “well rounded architect” but into two very di?erent jobs.

In Taylor’s research, it appeared that only a quarter of practices interviewed had strong ideological positions. This translates to only one quarter of practices limiting the use of digital tools to production only, or rather not allowing the tools to e?ect design. In practical terms, in 75% of practices it is the graduate who is typecast as “the rhino guy” that is having, albeit usually unwittingly, a huge impact on the outcome of design investigations. No wonder it is often di?cult to see any trend in mid to large size practices’ architectural ‘legacy’. As a result of this removal from any driving ideology, whether you are a natural in Revit or have mastered Grasshopper, you’re tasks and even the stages of projects you are involved in are pre-determined, and – according to Taylor – vary little from office to office....Continue Reading

> via Australian Design Review