Thresholds of Urban History
As I prepare for my course on the history of the city, I find myself asking, “when will this course require two semesters.” Architecture theory courses already spread across two semesters, but barely fit. Architectural history, for that matter, has three semesters of required knowledge – when will there be a fourth? If that wasn’t enough, technology courses can now cover new building systems, new materials, and ever-expanding sustainable technologies.
Where do we draw the line?
Do we draw the line?
In some sense, I think economics can help us understand a likely course of development – starting with tipping points. All the classes mentioned above, and countless others, will continue to cut material so that the course keeps within its given number of semesters. At some point too much material will be required, and programs will no longer be able to eliminate material. This, I imagine, will become a tipping point in which the subject will require an extra semester.
Conversely, I can imagine a different scenario to be true. If you apply the law of diminishing returns, it could be said as human history grows more expansive, the less important certain events will become. (Note: I’m taking a little liberty with this concept) Thus, as programs begin to cut material, it will be lost forever.
[Image: Screenshot of the undergraduate architecture curriculum at Georgia Tech. Courtesy of COA@GT.]
Having only recently joined the academic ranks, I can only presume that actual practice is a mix of the two. As the possible content of a survey course grows, some material is eliminated. However, as certain material is eliminated – or covered more sparingly – this provides opportunity for seminars and specialized electives. In this manner, architectural education is constantly distilled down to its essence. Meanwhile, the number and variety of electives and special studies is constantly increasing. This leaves me wondering…
If I had gone to architecture school 5, 10, 25, or 50 years earlier, what was required and what were my options?
If you liked that post, then try these...
While New York City Sleeps...
Like secret agents on a spy mission, we run, one by one, to the door of a building at 63rd and 3rd Ave....
Sustainable City Race, Part 1: Definition
Several news items have filtered through the internet lately demonstrating the many tangents of a larger...
Mayors Challenge 2008 Presidential Candidates
It appears the urgency for urban issues is catching on. Campaign in the City: Mayors on the Issues, a...
If you enjoyed this post, please leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Loading ...
I think this is an interesting post. I just found your blog, and haven’t read many of the other posts, but I plan to. However, I think one of the main issues this particular line of thought brings up is the somewhat variable chasm between academia and practice. I myself am finishing my Masters in Landscape Architecture and I find the tug between the two to be difficult to negotiate. (And I can imagine that as a teacher it would be even more so.) Because, on the one hand, there is merit to the old adage about learning history or being doomed to repeat it (or, maybe in this case knowing how to repeat it), but there is also the notion that Architecture school should basically serve as trade school. And I think there is some merit to that thought as well. I know some of my classmates worry that they haven’t been taught enough about the actual process of design, but we have been steeped in theory and are taught to be critical thinkers. Also valuable. So, yes, where is the line? And does the information that is deemed important ultimately get adjusted according to what is being done in the world (in practice) or according to the ideology of the school (academia)?
That’s my two cents.