Edward Allen BTES 2006 Keynote Speech

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Essence of Building Technology<strong>Edward</strong> <strong>Allen</strong>I believe that nearly all students of architecture enter architectureschool wanting to become broadly pro cient in allthe technical areas of architecture.They want to learn to design structures like Santiago Calatrava.They wanted to be able to use details and use materialslike Renzo Piano does. And they’d like to design forenergy ef ciency like Malcolm Wells.But by the end of their rst year of study, and all throughmany schools we have educated that desire out of them.By the time they’ve been in school for a year, they realizestudio is where it’s at. The studio is the all important part ofan architectural education and that the technical coursesare necessary evils that are to be endured in order to beable to continue to study design.The end result of this is that we graduate generation aftergeneration of students who are not broadly competent, andwhose design work suffers from a lack of understanding ofthe technical means by which we build. This is a disaster ofmajor proportions for the built environment, and a personaltragedy for thousands of individuals.Why does this happen? Well, the very simple answer isthat it happens because of “the gap”, not the clothing storeThe Gap, but “the gap,” that huge, bottomless gulf thatexists in the schools between the design studios and thetechnical courses.Well, let’s be honest: A lot of studio teachers are technicallyincompetent. They show little concern for integratingtechnology into the studio. It would be easy to blame themfor this “gap”.But then we have to ask, “How did these studio teachersget to be this way?”And the only plausible answer is that they got their negativeattitude toward technology by taking technical coursesfrom people like us.So, if we’re looking for someone to blame, we only need tolook in a mirror, because WE, the technical teachers, arelargely to blame for this “gap”.I hear complaints from architecture students at manyschools around the country about many of the technicalcourses in all areas of building technology.In many schools of architecture, maybe the majority ofthem, students don’t like laundry courses. They nd it boringand irrelevant. We have very serious problems fromwhat we teach and how we teach in building technology.I have given a lot of thought to this problem over a longperiod of time. That’s the advantage of getting old. I don’tthink that this problem stems principally from the lack ofteaching ability or a lack of good intentions.Let me include that with most of the dangers that we face,both from within and without, are caused by our own lackof clarity of who we are and what we do.I believe that “the gap” exists largelybecause of differences in goals andlanguage between the design studiosand the technical courses.In the design studio, the goal is tocreate good form, and the languageis of form and space and shape. Inthe technical courses, the goal istechnical competence, and the languageis math and science.In other words, we technical teachersdon’t have the same goal as thedesign studios, and partially we don’t speak the same language.This often means that we communicate poorly, if at all,across “the gap” with those who teach the studios.Our students suffer because they get a disjointed educationthat fails to bring out the rich potential of building technologyas an integral element of architectural design.You know, it’s always fun to x blame. Who is to blame forthis situation?...we graduate generation aftergeneration of students who arenot broadly competent, and whosedesign work suffers from a lackof understanding of the technicalmeans by which we build.1We’ve gone about our businessfor many years withoutstepping back to look objectivelyat what we’re doing.We’ve been on automatic pilotas these storm clouds havebeen gathering.A host of important questionshave come up and they’vegone unanswered. So thesequestions are:What is it that we teach, thissubject called building technology?What do technical courses have in common that makesthem an identi able area of the curriculum?Do we teach building science? Building engineering?Building technology? What’s the difference between theseterms anyway?What is our purpose? Is it to furnish technical support tothe design studios? Or perhaps to teach students whatthey need to know to pass the Architectural Registration
Examination? Or do we have a mission that is independentof either of these goals?All these questions can be summed up in one big, importantquestion: WHAT IS the ESSENCE of building technology?What is the essence of building technology? What is mostessential to our teaching?This question becomes more and more important as weare yanked around in many new directions by buildinginformation modeling, computational uid dynamics, multimediateaching tools, web based teaching, “green” architecture,design for the physically challenged, computergraphics, all kinds of computer algorithms and simulations,CNC machinery, 3-D photorealistic modeling and rendering.These are all options that are opening up to us in veryrapid order.And in order to evaluate all these options intelligently,we need to know “What is the essence of building technology?”We also need to know the answer to this question in orderto know who we are, what our essential business is, andwhy it’s important.By not only moving have we allowed others to step in andtell us what we should be doing, like cutting our curriculumrequirements to the bone, conducting funded researchand pursuing PhD degrees we may not really want in somecases.I think it’s time we learn who we are in order to take controlof our own destiny.“What is the essence of building technology?”After much pondering of this question I’ve concluded thatit’s not mathematics, it’s not science, it’s not engineering.It’s certainly not preparation for the ARE.Each thing may play important roles in our teaching andbuilding technology, but they’re not the essence. For me,the essence of building technology, the concern that shouldbe the primary focus of all of our courses is “GETTING THEFORM RIGHT”.Let me say that again. The essence of building technologyis getting the form right. Get the form right and the rest iseasy.Let me give you a number of examples that demonstratewhy I believe this. And I’ll take these examples from everyarea of building technology, in random order.Think about acoustics. What is the most effective, leastexpensive way to isolate a noisy space from a quiet spacein a building? If we form the building in such a way thatthe two rooms are remote from one another, you’ve solvedthe problem. If we insist on putting the noisy room nextto the quiet room, we have a whole arsenal of techniquesand drills and assemblies that we can use to reduce noisetransmission between the rooms, but it’ll cost a bundle, andthe result will never be as satisfactory as if we had simplyput one room at one end of the complex and the other roomat the other end. Get the form right, and the rest is easy.Still thinking about acoustics, think about designing a concerthall. The shape of the concert hall is virtually everything.Make the room a bad shape, and you’re faced withpoor hearing conditions and increased expense for remediation.Get the form right and the rest is easy.Think about HVAC. If we want to make a building comfortableto inhabit and economical to heat and cool, it’s virtuallya matter of horrible decisions. We choose a shelteredplace on the site. We choose the proper orientation for thebuilding. We mass the building properly. We provide it withwindows in the right proportions and in the right facades,for the render indications. We use thermal insulation andthermal mass intelligently. We plant trees in the right locations.The math and the science become trivial if theseformal decisions are made well. Get the form right, and therest is easy.Think about materials and methods of construction, onceagain getting the form right is important above all. Putmovement joints where they are needed. Use rain screencon gurations in the wall and window details. Simplify thedetails to make them easier and more economical to build.All these are formal decisions. Get the form right, and therest is easy.Daylighting design is mainly about form. It’s about windoworientations, room proportions, positions and dimensionsof re ecting surfaces such as light shelves, re ective qualitiesof the surfaces in the rooms, distances of visual tasksfrom windows. Make these formal decisions right, and therest is easy.And yes, the eld of structure is mainly about getting theform right. Funicular form is the key to the creation of ef- cient, beautiful long span structures. Proper material andsystem selection, good bay layouts, and good proportioningand shaping of members are the essence of creatingbuilding framing. In seismic design where massing of thebuilding is critical to prevent partial movements and thingsof that nature. The massing of the building is important sothat we don’t have building masses knocking against oneanother during earthquakes and hammering one anotherto smithereens. Lateral force resistance is largely a matterof putting shear walls, and rigid joints and diagonal bracingin the proper locations. The mathematics of structuresbecomes almost trivial, because virtually a matter of justverifying rule-of-thumb calculations as it were, extremelyclose to the truth, once we’ve got the form right.2
Page 4 and 5: All the very best structural engine
Page 6 and 7: st class to say that all of your pr
Page 8: Mission Statement of the BTESThe Bu

Edward Allen BTES 2006 Keynote Speech

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?