It is argued that an architect’s values are what set them apart from other professions when it comes to the concept of designing buildings (Cohen et al. 2005). These values are suggested to include such aspects as a ‘sense of space’, ‘aesthetics’, ‘beauty’, and ‘a feeling for the built environment’ (Cohen et al. 2005) and (Schön 1984). It is also suggested that it is within this value system that it informs architectural design (Schön 1984). This is corroborated by Le Dantec & Do (2009, p12) who suggest that values are “principles, standards, and qualities that guide actions. These may be personal, cultural or professional” and that “Values motivate the decisions and guide the action of architects.”
Together these authors suggest that an architect’s values are what guide their actions or design, and that these values are aesthetically orientated. This is supported by Senturer & Istek (2000) who also suggest that most architectural values are based in the visual arena including aesthetics, visual perception and beauty. Thus, it is suggested that the definition for architectural values adopted by this research is a combination of the Le Dantec & Do (2009) quotes above: ‘Architectural values are the principles and standards that motivate the decisions and guide the action of architects.’
The literature suggests that values guide how architects design. It is, therefore, important to understand how these are shaped in order to conceive how they affect adaptable design. In this respect, architectural education sets the foundation as to how value systems are shaped within the profession (Cuff 1991). Most architectural programs emphasise innovation and novelty, with a focus on creativity (Glasser 2000). This is also highlighted by Cuff (1991) who suggests that architectural education has, for a considerable amount of time, been based around learning how to be creative and thinking for one’s self. Lawson et al. (2003) continues this theme, advocating that ‘knowing by doing’ is a readily accepted method of educating within architecture; this is also backed up by
22
Indeed, Spector (2001, p5) even argues that ethics and a feeling of social responsibility are important to architects as they aim to "protect the public against the dangers of shoddy and insensitive buildings". This ethical desire of architects to consider design strategies or buildings beyond their own or their client’s wishes in a fair, responsible, well meaning, and non cynical way, this is echoed by (Pérez-Gómez 2006, Fox 2012, McNeill 2006, Jones & Card 2011). The arguments they make is that society should expect that an architect will consider societal concerns, such as sustainability, when designing buildings rather than just the aesthetics. In earlier work these societal concerns were focussed on ‘shoddy and insensitive buildings’ but as sustainability has come to the fore as an issue, more recently writers have focussed on ethics relating to sustainability.
Learning continues to play a significant role in an architect’s career, where architects in most practices engage in CPD (continuing professional development) events, lunch seminars, and evening training courses, typically aimed at improving computer skills, knowledge of new materials/
regulations, or learning about architectural theories, practices and buildings (Till 2009, Schön 1984, Nicol & Pilling 2005).
These values of creativity, continual learning, ethics and social responsibility suggest that architects would be open to learning from how their building is appropriated over time. At odds with this assumption, however, is a suggestion that architects have a tendency to disregard the past (Heylighen et al. 2007b, Brand 1994, Bordass et al. 2005) and ignore the unknown future (Till 2009).
What is clear, however, is that values develop within education and then strengthen once in practice and can have a significant impact on how architects design, and how their design decisions affect the eventual use of a building. Therefore, it is important to understand how these values develop. The next section examines the role of education in developing or imposing these values.
23
years old, however, recent studies have shown that very little has changed over this time. For example Till (2009, p12) argues that the shape of architectural education may have changed from
“classical plans” to “algorithmic blobs” but the overriding autonomy of the process remains along with the emphasis on form. This idea of creativity being the main driver for archiectural education is also found in the writing of (Rong & Dexiang 1997 and Kowaltowski et al. 2010).
The three part architectural system has been in place since the 19th century (Till 2012). It has been suggested that it is this system, whilst very thorough, that is driving the achievements of aesthetics and the technical spectacle, rather than the consideration of time within design (Till 2012). Whilst it is argued that this dominance of visual values is hardly a surprise considering the nature of architectural work (Till 2009), the literature also suggests that architects ignore time to concentrate on aesthetics and functional performance (Schmidt III et al. 2010b), rather than considering how their design decisions impact buildings in use.
The literature clearly suggests that this static teaching philosophy could be a significant barrier to changing mindsets, as this would require the educational system to change and become more encompassing of understanding change and time (Nicol & Pilling 2005, Eisenstein et al. 1989, Oksala 1991 and Till 2012). However, Till also acknowledges that “actually when not obsessed with the production of visual imagery, architecture exposes students to an extraordinarily broad range of intellectual activity” Till (2009, p168). Thus it may be that while the educational system does not currently establish an understanding of change or time, it does provide a comprehensive education.
It is important to understand what architectural education actually focuses on and whether this focus could be adapted to offer an understanding of change or time.
‘Knowing-by-doing’ is a readily accepted way of educating within architecture (Nicol & Pilling 2005, Lawson 2004). This knowing-by-doing approach implies that there is tacit knowledge passed on from master to apprentice, information that may be very valuable to the apprentice, but is never shared with his peers. It is then inferred that the master apprentice model is then carried on in practice,
24
architectural schools, as they tend to teach the design of new buildings (Brand 1994, Kohler &
Hassler 2002). This is perhaps one of the most significant issues for the impact of the current research, as current architectural education does not seem to place any significance on understanding how buildings can change over time or how to design for adaptability (Till 2009, Schmidt III et al. 2009, Till 2012, Wang 2010, Findeli 2001). However, Till (2012) does suggest that he expects there to be a shift from the creation of new buildings to the revivification of old, tired, buildings within architectural education. This would mean architects would have to begin to understand how buildings can be adapted throughout their life, which would need to be reflected in a new educational system.
Although an architect’s value system is shaped in education, it is also instilled within practice.
Therefore, it is also important to examine the literature surrounding architectural practice, which is discussed in the following section.