You are on page 1of 274

Editors Constantin Spiridonidis | Maria Voyatzaki

ISBN 978-960-9502-16-0
16th Meeting of Heads of European Schools of Architecture
Dealing with Change
For a dynamic, responsive, adaptive and engaged
architectural education

This project has been carried out with the support of the European Community
and in the framework of the Lifelong Learning Programme.

The content of this project does not necessarily reflect the position of the European Community,
nor does it involve any responsibility on the part of the European Union.
Editors Constantin Spiridonidis | Maria Voyatzaki
16th Meeting of Heads of European Schools of Architecture
Dealing with Change
For a dynamic, responsive, adaptive and engaged architectural education

Constantin Spiridonidis
Maria Voyatzaki

Transcription and speech adaptation: Sara Young

Cover design: Emmanouil Zaroukas
Layout design: Dimitris Apostolidis
Printed by: Charis Ltd, Thessaloniki, Greece

ISBN 978-960-9502-16-0

Copyright © 2014 by the authors

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, micro-
film or by any other means without written permission from the publisher.

Despite the attempt to transcribe with accuracy the debates from the workshop, the editors wish to
apologise in advance for any inaccuracies of the interventions of individuals that could be attributed
to the quality of recording.
List of
List of contents

Acknowledgements . ..................................................................................................................... 11

Dealing with Change:
For an adaptive, responsive, engaging and dynamic
architectural education
Constantin Spiridonidis and Maria Voyatzaki ......................................................................... 15


Architectural Education Today – the School of Tomorrow

Marcos Cruz .............................................................................................................................................. 21

Architecture: Motivations and Crossroads

Per Olaf Fjeld . .......................................................................................................................................... 45

Revisiting Design in the era of Innovation

Challenges and Opportunities for Schools of Architecture
Alfonso Gomez . ...................................................................................................................................... 61

Session 1

Managing Change:
Profiling Change in a Globalised World
Introductory panel
Karl Otto Ellefsen, Norman Millar, Ivan Cartes,
Carlos Vallanteres-Cerezo, Tore Brandstveit Haugen ......................................................... 69
Closing remarks
Coordinated by Ted Landsmark .......................................................................................................... 96
Session 2

Managing Change:
Academic Leadership and Teaching
Introductory panel
Anne Mette Boye, Denise Pinheiro Machado, Konstantinos Moraitis,
Frederick Cooper, Art Rice, Hugo Dworzak .................................................................................... 99
Coordinated by Dag Boutsen ............................................................................................................. 127

Session 3

Managing Change:
Potential Roles and Professional Activities
for Architects
Introductory panel
Spyros Amourgis, Cecilie Andersson, Sally Stewart,
Maria de Fatima Fernandes, Peter Gabrijelčič .............................................................................. 135
Coordinated by Michael Monti ............................................................................................................ 172

Session 4

Managing Change:
Modernized Directive and New School Profiles
Professional qualifications: the amended Directive
and the Bologna Process
Howard Davies ........................................................................................................................................ 187

Discussion on the lecture animated by

James Horan, Constantin Spiridonidis, Herman Neuckermans ............................................. 206
Session 5

Managing Change:
New Forms of Networking
for Education and Research
Introductory panel
Johan Verbeke, Russel Light, Marios Phocas,
Nur Çaglar, Zsolt Vasaros ..................................................................................................................... 213
Coordinated by Koenraad van Cleempoel ...................................................................................... 232

Session 6

Synthesis and Conclusions

Ted Landsmark, Dag Boutsen, Cecilie Andersson, Rob Cuyvers ............................................. 243
Coordinated by Constantin Spiridonidis ......................................................................................... 245

List of Participants . ................................................................................................................................... 261


As organisers of this event we wish to express our sincere thanks to all participants of the 16th
Meeting of Heads of European Schools of Architecture not only for their faith in our efforts
but also for their lively presence, constructive comments, participation in fruitful debates, and
determination without which the materialization of our effort would be impossible.
We would also like to thank all panel participants who, with their pertinent contributions and
remarks to the themes of the Meeting, gave to it the value of an interesting academic event.
We also thank all keynote speakers who, through their interesting lectures, contributed to the
enhancement of the academic quality of the Meeting.
Special thanks also go to the Architects Antonios Moras and Katerina Saraptzian for their sup-
port for the organisation before, during and after the event; to the graphic designer Dimitris
Apostolidis for the page layout of the volume, as well as to Mrs Sara Young for her hard work
in transcribing and transforming the spoken content into formal and comprehensive text.

Constantin Spiridonidis and Maria Voyatzaki

Constantin Spiridonidis and Maria Voyatzaki
Dealing with Change:
For an adaptive, responsive, engaging
and dynamic architectural education

The most crucial diagnosis emerging from the various debates of the past meetings of Heads
of Schools of Architecture in Chania is that Architectural Education structures have a signifi-
cant resistance to the fast changes occurring in the real world; they appear rather passive and
unable to follow these changes occurring at a social, financial and cultural level. The direct
consequence of such significant time-lapse affects the quality of architectural education, and
the potential influence architecture graduates have on professional practice as well as on
society and culture. As the pace of changes becomes higher, this attitude of schools threatens
their credibility, reliability, authority and reputation with direct consequences on the respect,
status and role of their graduates in the already unstable professional market. Nowadays, the
management of change is increasingly becoming an imperative request for the academic
leadership of schools of architecture.

The meeting of Heads presented in this volume focused on the Change Management in
Schools of Architecture. Its main objectives were to examine possible strategies, processes,
tools and means for a more efficient, creative and productive adaptation of academic programs,
practices and directions; to exchange good-practice examples, ideas, proposals and experi-
ences; to diffuse information about the constraints that different educational environments
are encountering while managing change and to inspect different ways to deal with them;
to contribute to the emergence of a change-management culture as an efficient antidote to
the problems and dilemmas fast changes cause.

As main investigation platform for the management of Change, the Meeting proposes the
Meeting proposed four main issues for discussion, reflection and debate.

The first issue related to the management of change was the perception of change from the
academic community. The aim of the session was to map the differences in the management
of change in the geographical areas represented in the Meeting and in the strategies that the
Associations of Schools of Architecture implement to support their members in their effort to
deal with change. Five Associations of Schools of Architecture across the globe were invited
to offer their insights and to answer the questions addressed by the organisers. Are changes
in architectural education common in different geographical areas of the globe? Does the
request for change focus on similar issues and priorities? What is the impact of the context on
architectural education? Does the experienced globalization of architectural education have
any respect for local identities, requests, claims, needs and traditions? Are there different ways
of managing change in different areas of the contemporary globalized architectural education?

The second issue the Meeting discussed was the impact of the changes on the academic
leadership and teaching. As we all know, our architectural education system is structured upon
the hypothesis that the profile of graduates generated nowadays will stay valid throughout
their professional life or, at least, in a very big part of it. However, in the recent past we are
experiencing radical changes in the way we think, conceive, create and practise architecture
paired with equally radical changes in the building industry, the construction methods, the
16 real estate management and the investments in the domain of the built environment. All these

changes generate demands for a new way of thinking architectural design for new knowledge,
skills and competences questioning those who are actually ensured by our institutions. In this
dynamics of change we increasingly feel unable to predict the future profile of the architect,
while having serious reasons to believe that this will not be the same. How can we organise
architectural education in this new context of unpredictability? What profile(s) will emerge from
the education our schools offer? What will be the competences, what can best assure a sustain-
able architectural career? How can we structure flexible, adaptable and responsive curricula?

The third issue was the impact of change on the professional profile of the architect. Financial
crises have caused an average unemployment rate of 25% for architects. In some countries
this percentage is significantly higher as these crises have caused an overall significant reduc-
tion of the activities in the building industry. In this context, architects are forced to look for
other professional activities and to redefine their presence, position and responsibility. Schools
of architecture can certainly contribute to the need of expanding the existing spectrum of
professional activities of the architects, by assuring knowledge, skills and competences which
will render them more flexible, responsive, adaptive in the international financial and social
dynamics. What are the possible directions in which the professional activities of the archi-
tect could be expanded? How adequately do schools detect the trends and the demands of
the market? How would their autonomy as academic institutions not be an obstacle to their
sensitivity to change? What could be the academic initiatives that would enable Schools to
cope with change?

The fourth issue concerned the changes at institutional level and more specifically on the
new law that controls the recognition of professional qualifications of architects. At the time
the 16th Meeting of Heads was taking place, the amended Directive had not been voted. As
a consequence, the organizers invited as keynote speaker Dr. Howard Davies, the European
Universities Association’s advisor, to offer information about the law to be voted, the proc-
ess of its preparation, the reasons for its formulation and the argumentation for its contents.
The discussion of this issue focused on the fact that this revision of the Directive 2005/36/EC
envisages two different profiles of an architect; the one to be created after a no-less-than-four-
year full-time study, accompanied by a certificate attesting to the completion of two years of
traineeship (4+2). The other to be created after a total of at least five years of full-time study
without any traineeship (5+0). These two profiles are replacing the one advocated by the exist-
ing Directive, which was the four-year-full-time study without any traineeship (4+0). Schools of
architecture will have the legal obligation and responsibility to decide which profile they will
follow and how their graduates will compete with one another. Are we facing a new policy to
reduce the duration of study time? Are we facing a new strategy to delegate part of architectural
education to professional practice? How will this change affect the Bologna process? These are
the most crucial questions emerging from this new situation.

The fourth issue that the Meeting discussed concerned the new forms of networking emerging
from the new Erasmus+ program, which was launched by the beginning of 2014. In Chania,
however, we wished to inform the participants about its new character. What we wished to
investigate was the viewpoint of architectural academia regarding the new conception of 17

networking emerging from the unstable conditions of our contemporary world. What are the
new forms of networking and inter-university collaborations we need nowadays? What are the
gains from the different forms of networking initiatives developed in the last years? Do schools
of architecture have a clear policy for contemporary networking and academic exchange? What
forms of networking do we need in the digital era, in the new context of the financial crisis, in
the fast changing world? What are the appropriate forms of academic collaborations in this
context? There are emerging new responsibilities of schools of architecture to redefine and
adapt their networking policy and the forms of collaboration they need to follow.

The following eminent keynote speakers were invited to contribute to the works and the
debates of the Meeting:
Marcos Cruz, Architect, PhD, Director, Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL, U.K.
Per Olaf Fjeld, Professor of Architecture, Oslo School of Architecture, Norway
Alfonso Gómez, Civil Engineer, Architect, PhD, Universidad Católica de Chile.
Howard Davies, PhD, European University Association, U.K.

As in all the previous years, the Centre of Mediterranean Architecture hosted the event. The
opening ceremony of the Meeting was combined with the opening of the art exhibition of
Prof. Marvin Malecha Dean from North Carolina State University in USA.

As in all previous publications of the Heads’ Meetings debates, the aim of the editors has been
to offer material for further examination, reading and consultancy. We really hope that this
volume also reflects the constructive atmosphere, the positive spirit, the collaborative attitude
and the friendly mood in which the Meeting developed; necessary elements for its sustain-
ability and for the impact of its work to the future of architectural education.

Marcos Cruz
Director, Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL, London, United Kingdom
Architectural Education today
The School of tomorrow

This essay is the result of a keynote lecture that I gave at the 16th ENHSA conference Dealing
with Change – for a dynamic, responsive, adaptive, and engaged architectural education in Chania,
Greece in September 2013. It also follows on from an article entitled "Lateral Design – towards
a more Experimental Approach to Architectural Education" 1 written on the occasion of the
EAAE Educating Architects - towards Innovative Architecture symposium and proceedings cata-
logue published in 2010, where I addressed a new pedagogic approach towards architectural
education. The present article is different as it is more of a summary of loose observations and
experiences about schools of architecture that I made during my Directorship of the Bartlett
School of Architecture/UCL in the last four years. With it, my aim is not to define a new educa-
tional model applicable to all. Also none of the descriptions rely on rigorous or comprehensive
investigations about the history of architectural education. My intention is simply to contribute
with a few suggestions to a broader debate about our current and future schools, in a time
where our profession is undergoing profound changes.
In 2010 I stated that we have many different schools of architecture, and that institutions in
some form of manner respond to very distinct socio-economic and cultural contexts. This is
why diversity is for me unquestionable and one of the key pre-conditions to a heterogeneous
approach in architectural education that has for centuries proven so fruitful in the European
context. I am a strong advocate of varied types of pedagogic visions and identities, and this is
not only applicable to different schools, but also within each institution.

To start with, I would like to recognise that as students we are all ‘formed’ by the schools where
we study. This is not only via the chosen curriculum or structure; we are certainly influenced by
the physical surrounding we are taught in. The buildings and cities in which we spend so much
time working day and night have a surreptitious influence on our psychology and attitude. It
creates an inner sense of what it means for each of us to be an architect. In this context, it is
worth looking at some basic typologies.
The traditional art schools, such as the Beaux Arts in Paris 2 or the Akademie der Bildende
Künste in Vienna 3, integrate the oldest and most established types of architecture schools.
They are commonly set in grand neo-classical buildings with long and high-ceiling corridors
where we tend to find a small number of students who think and practice architecture as an art.
In contrast with that are the mega-institutions created in the post-war era of the 20th century
where a much more open-to-all educational model allowed thousands of students to study.
Quantity, a certain level of anonymity and the school-as-a-social-service principle still applies
today to such purpose-built (modernist) buildings. Great masterpieces, such as the FAU/UFRJ
in Rio de Janeiro 4 with its extravagant lobby and Burle-Marx garden, as well as the FAU/USP
in São Paulo 5 with its huge open assembly space and iconic ramp, best incarnate this spirit.
With kinship to such large institutions are the Polytechnic (Fachhochschulen) or Technical
Universities (TUs) in Europe that emerged in the 60s and 70s in countless urban centres. With
obvious difference between both types, they nonetheless represent an understanding of
architecture through a much closer relationship with the sciences; in many cases universities
confer architecture degrees with a simultaneous qualification in engineering, in others cases
schools of architecture are even integrated in engineering faculties. In these departments or
institutes practical knowledge (Polytechnics) and academic research (Technical Universities)
22 forms a vital part of the institutional activities and outputs. The ETSAB/UPC Barcelona 6 and the

TU Berlin 7, for example, are typically located in large-scale vertically-contained (functionalist)

blocks. Their offered curriculum has a strong emphasis on technology, construction and plan-
ning. The TU Delft’s tragic fire demolished another classical example of this type, having forced
the school to accept other more hybrid types of accommodation for its current operations.8
The slightly later case of the GSD Harvard 9 is one of such paradigmatic cases where the typol-
ogy of stepped studios of the Gund Hall became so iconic that is was emulated in other places,
most successfully in Taiwan’s Tunghai University 10.
Different from these self-contained buildings, and with a more open and dispersed arrange-
ments are cases like the Universidad Veritas in San Jose Costa Rica 11. Even more so is the
Pontífica Universidad Católica de Chile 12 sited in a campus that integrates an old Hacienda
house, several courtyards, little gardens and pavilions, a buried library, and many small and
mid-scale edifices designed by famous Chilean architects.
Not far away from it, a totally different model applies to the Open City in Valparaiso. This school
expresses itself through a much more radical, hands-on approach where staff and students
together built houses for academic and accommodation purposes, as well as installations
spread in a vast estate that altogether create a very unique context for the school. With all this
construction, the Open City is the ultimate experimental and experiential lab, resulting from
a strong ideological vision where architects, artists and poets operate conjointly in an excep-
tional communal atmosphere. It is known for its ‘Traversias’ (field trips) through South America
where students and staff search for a singular, holistic and poetic identity of architecture that
is intertwined with the genius loci of each landscape.

One of the most renowned architecture schools is the Architectural Association in London that
is located in a Georgian townhouse in Bloomsbury London. This setting provides the school
with a very peculiar character - an originally domestic arrangement with narrow staircases and
lots of small rooms, which nonetheless makes the best case for a school that has made history
in a building that was never built for its current purpose.
Similar lack of purposefulness, but with a very different identity can be seen at Sci-Arc, which is
location in an old freight depot on the east side of downtown Los Angeles. Here the roughness
of its concrete and the quarter-of-a-mile length plays an important part of the school’s daily
atmosphere. Studios, workshops, corridors turned into crit spaces and administration work
side-by-side, with a constant exposure of people and production. The informality of all spaces
continues the legacy of the 1972 warehouse where at the time “the conventional educational
hierarchies of administrators and senior and junior faculty members disappeared in favor of a
more fluid management model…”, as Eric Owen Moss describes.13
The Bartlett, on the other hand, stands here perhaps for a more ambiguous model. Its opera-
tions happened in fact successfully for a long time in a miserable building, Wates House, which
was purposely built but only really functional due to the constant readjustments of space that
happened along each year, which turned out to be its great strengths. Definitely more than a
building to look at, the school was always understood as a changeable framework to act on
and in which anything could happen. At the same time, the recent occupation of the vacant
Royal Ear Hospital has proven a very distinct experience with its big empty spaces; the motto
‘rough building – sophisticated gear’ used during the refurbishment meant that the simple

Fig. 1-3
24 Alga(e)zebo.

Fig. 4a, b
Unit 20 1:1 prototyping /
NURBSTER XI – Stand for
the Reveal Festival.

Fig. 5-6
Buildings by Bartlett tutors.


Fig. 7
Buildings by Bartlett tutors.

whitewash of an almost ruin-like environment in the heart of Central London was the ideal fit
for a school that is known for its conceptual freedom and relentless production.14
A comparable case can be seen at UCLA in Los Angeles where Perloff Hall was likewise purpose-
fully built, in this case as part of the extraordinary Westwood campus. But while the building
has never been a great facility, it accommodated successfully UCLA’s acclaimed teachers and
students for a long time. UCLA today has seen important extensions through its international
DM FutureLab programme in Munich and furthermore through is recently opened IDEAS
Campus in Playa Vista.
The Bauhaus 15 with its famous Gropius building is arguably the most known example of the
20th century. But more than the whole, it is the legendary staircase famously portrayed by Oscar
Schlemmer that perhaps speaks best for the identity of the school. It is a piece that stands for
a dynamic conception of modern design expressed in a lot of the school’s work at that time,
being also the most important point of social interaction.
Not coincidentally Morphosis borrowed this idea of “a great school with a great staircase”, tak-
ing it even further with the grand void in the new Cooper Union building in NY. This extraor-
dinary staircase trespasses the whole building cross-diagonally, giving it a completely new
gravitas; it combines a complex network of circulation, visual connection and social activity.
But many schools do not enjoy a unique building typology. It is rather the presence or func-
tion of a specific spot (such as a staircase) that is enough to give identity or express a sense
of uniqueness of a school. In Porto the old ‘Cooperativa Árvore’, later turned into ESAP, is

Fig. 8
Wendy Teo - new Central Station, Taipei Taiwan.

Fig. 9
Kasper Ax - Ecummenical Centre, Turin Italy.

characterized by its scattered location right in the medieval town centre where several of its
buildings have extraordinary panoramic views. No student will ever forget 1st year drawing
classes when sitting on the top floor of ‘Passeio das Virtudes’ 16 next to the large terrace from
where they could enjoy the sublime spectacle of the city’s river and bridges.
Another good example is the famous AA bar where you can hang out and cross the most influ-
28 ential personalities of world architecture like in no other place. This bar has such reputation

that it was even advertised in the English newspaper Guardian as one of London's top five
quirky restaurants and bars – rather wonderful for an architecture school.17
At the Bartlett the highlight is unquestionably the annual Summer Show, which is the most
spectacular student exhibition of its kind. Staff, students, alumni, families and guests reunite
in the thousands in front of the abundant production of the school, which at the same time
uses the moment to redefine the design identity of each unit, and thus the whole school, at
the end of each year.

All in all, it is important to acknowledge the role of architecture school buildings and the
specific places or moments that are able to crystalize the identity of the whole place. Differ-
ent types of schools can be mirrored in the buildings they operate in, and there is surely not
coincidence in this relationship; like a dress, the edifices symbolise very often a particular
approach to architecture that ends up being promoted in each institution.
The scale of a school is in this context another significant feature. It varies a lot from case to
case with an impact on its structure and people. Peter Cook often compared schools to ships
and boats. He considered the large-scale, research-driven (Technical) Universities to oil tank-
ers - colossal and heavy, with lots of weight and power due to the large student numbers and
funding, but slow in adapting to change (Italian and many South American universities can
have a student body of over 10,000) 18. These universities rely on a complicated bureaucratic
machine that is usually managed rather than led. By contrast, Cook speaks about the (luxury)
speedy boats - examples include the University of Applied Arts [die Angewandte] in Vienna,
the Städelschule in Frankfurt or Princeton in New Jersey. Commonly housed in large build-
ings, these schools are tiny in size (up to 300 students) and rely on strong leadership, which
makes them very flexible and quick in adapting to change. One should add here at least a third
category which is the contemporary ferryboat - and I would argue that this is probably the
current situation of a school like the Bartlett. This is a mid-scale operation (between 500-1000
students) that is still able to adapt relatively well to change, but depending on scale and type
(closer to a yacht or a mid-scale cargo ship) risks becoming too bulky and surprisingly inflex-
ible. The ferryboat is programmatically diverse and mixed-use, able to carry a considerable
amount of freight (funding). When compared with the speedy boats, Cook sees in these cases
the advantage of a size that promotes a sense of familiarity, yet also gives particular students
sufficient space to develop their own pace without having to be under the spotlight all the
time; the unexpected front-runner can emerge from behind.
The structure of schools is clearly the most discussed aspect and seen by many as the pivotal
factor of success in architectural education. It is certainly relevant, but we all know that a bet-
ter structure does not necessarily make a better school; it can only facilitate the production
that ultimately is down to the symbiosis of staff and students. In Europe one of the greatest
accomplishments has undoubtedly been the creation of an equivalence between schools of
different backgrounds and ideologies. This, however, has been achieved with a high cost. The
equivalence of a 3+2 structure implemented through the Bologna treaty forced many schools
to a hugely difficult and time-consuming reform that is now risking to over-homogenise edu-
cation in Europe. In the end, I believe one should accept a diverse set of positions and avoid
over-emphasising the role of structure when this is only a temporary condition that can be
changed at any time, without necessarily making the levels of education better. Just look the 29

Fig. 10
Richard Beckett, Alex Rizova - Agro-Environmental Urbanism, Taipei Taiwan.

recent discussions about a new 4+1 model that might force schools to a renewed restructu-
ration all over Europe. More relevant, I think, is whether a school uses a semester, annual, or
multi-annual model (including the ‘Meisterklassen’). The semester system is typically horizontal
and tends to prepare students to become short-distant runners. The annual system, on the
other hand, develops middle-distance runners, who are often slower but more in-depth think-
ers. Their production tends to be more personal and critical. The bi-annual or Meisterklasse
system is typically vertical, mixing students from different years, and produces long-distant
runners. Their endurance is more in tune with a more experimental and research-driven atti-
tude in design, especially with projects that demand time to explore unknown territories. Not
surprisingly many students of this system are inclined at some point in their career to become
engaged in academic activities.
There are enormous variables in what concerns the specific curriculum implemented by each
school. Many schools use what I call the ‘universal knowledge curriculum’, relying on a peda-
gogic cluster of subjects that aims at giving students a broad but generalist overview of design,
history, technology, social and environmental studies, etc. Fewer places are offering this more
focused and student-tailored curriculum, which, in a time where advances in technology are
moving extremely quickly, and where information technologies allow knowledge to be avail-
able more or less everywhere instantaneously, is certainly a valid alternative approach. The
question remains for each school where to start and end with the extent of the curriculum? If
one takes for example the case of basic history education in architecture schools today, one
wonders how capable students are to assimilate the breath of historic knowledge taught in a
by-default compressed set of sessions. How useful is it really for students to hear in theory about
a Borromoni or Bernini, when they will hardly ever be able to digest or even remotely apply any
of their achievements in their design? The point I want to make here is that there is a danger
with all the broad curricula in trying to cover too much too quickly, forcing students through
an often unmanageable process in their basic architectural education. This is even more so
when the length of architecture studies has been shortened already, and is in the imminence
of being condensed even more in the future. Here, I would argue, it is important to re-evaluate

Fig. 11
Sam Welham, Rui Liu, Jeffrey Lee - Favela-Script, Rio de Janeiro Brazil.

the role of contemporary design studios and question how they can effectively compensate
for this reduction through an integrated and multi-layered education of architecture. How do
we teach design in a way that lets a multiplicity of fields (conceptual, methodological, histori-
cal, socio-political, technological, etc.) to be considered, and how is the vital role of applied
knowledge through the tools design preparing our students differently for the profession of
tomorrow? This doesn’t mean necessarily to implement a more specialised system, but rather
to allow students to tailor their courses to the preferences and interests they develop, enabling 31

Fig. 12
32 Joanna Pawlas - Audiobricks, Hong Kong PR China.

them to create their own trajectory of learning. At the Bartlett, for example, we saw a shift
in the 90s from a 80% - 20% balance of Design/Project versus Technology/H+T/Prof+Urban
Studies, to a 60% - 40% ratio today, which is driven by requirements of professional bodies that
ask schools to comply with an ever more wide-ranging curriculum. As it stands, the breath of
taught subjects is so extensive and time-consuming that it is in fact reducing the inherently
comprehensive and synthetic role of design studios – add here the time-restrictions of the
semester system and it will create an even narrower frame for students to develop their own
approach to architecture. I like to consider the possibility of less curriculum in our schools.
We should perhaps avoid an over-regularised module-based system in favour of a far simpler
and design-integrated pedagogic model, one in which optional open-classes and a few core
subjects can be strategically coordinated (and even integrated) with design.
The studio environment in itself is a factor that is not to be underestimated in contemporary
design. From the extreme size of an open-plan environment, such as the one seen at the Taub-
man College of Architecture and Urban Planning at the University of Michigan, where hundreds
of students sit side-by-side like in a Detroit car manufacturing plant, to the 8-15m2 Central
London ‘cubicles’ found in Wates House at the Bartlett, there is an array of different spaces and
atmospheres possible. Whatever type available, fundamental is that students are able to work
at school in a surrounding that promotes a culture of creative dialogue, teamwork and critical
debate. In my article of 2012 I compared the contemporary student to a ‘networked virtuoso’
who is a highly skilled master of his/her tools and craft increasingly more linked to a world-wide
community of experts outside the studio. 19 Yet with such connectivity students still need to
feel at home in their studios and be able to personalise their work place as an expression and
reflection of their own interests. Possibly the best example that calls to mind is Antoni Gaudi’s
Sagrada Familia atelier where Gaudi’s intellectual universe had a direct reflection on the stu-
dio’s walls and ceilings; drawings intermingle with models, figural ornaments, found objects,
creating a manifold of extraordinary richness that undoubtedly inspired his own production.20
The change from the drawing board to the computer interface has brought with it much
discussed changes in what concerns our design practice. New processes are asking for new
work environments. It is interesting to look at the experimental case at NCKU in Taiwan where
a set of new studio scenarios are being tested through the integration of network-based and
interactive systems. Also new computational tools are triggering new modes of production
and fabrication, challenging further the traditional practice of architecture in studios. This is
allowing us to test in a both three-dimensional and material way more complex geometries
and tectonics. As an example, in the post-professional Masters at the IaaC in Barcelona or B.PRO
at the Bartlett, studios and workshops are merging in an unprecedented manner, fostering a
much more intimate relationship between the act of design and physical/spatial production.
In B.PRO you can find CNC milling, 3D printing and laser machines, and robots are now even
sitting on drawing tables. A new sense of digital crafting is emerging where students are
combining computational simulation and modelling tools with hands-on analogue material
We should not forget that technical know-how is nowadays also more and more concentrated
in places where the manufacturing and production of materials and architecture takes place.
The marcosandmarjan Alga(e)zebo project sited in busy Euston Square Gardens in London
gives good evidence of this. Initially selected as part of an exclusive competition for London
school’s of architecture to design and build an innovative piece for the Mayor's Part of Won- 33

Fig. 13
34 Joanna Pawlas – Sonic Morphologies 1, Hong Kong PR China.

Fig. 14
Joanna Pawlas – Sonic Morphologies 2, Hong Kong PR China. 35

Fig. 15
Maria Knutsson-Hall – Slow motion architecture 1, Rio de Janeiro Brazil.

der: Incredible Installations during the London Olympics, the Alga(e)zebo was only possible
due to an interdisciplinary collaboration between experts from academia and industry. The
knowledge of Dutch manufacturers Formstaal/CSI in Germany enabled experimentation with
perforated double steel curvature plates, while the Austrian branch of German engineering
company Bollinger & Grohmann took care of the structural calculation of the complex geom-
etry. At the same time, UCL Algae gave the necessary support to develop the algae vessels
which were later inserted in the structure, while everything was designed and managed from
within the Bartlett. The Alga(e)zebo reflected an important shift: that of architecture schools
not only being a place for exclusive vocational education to become also a research-oriented
lab capable of intervening directly in the public realm through its production. Research centres
(in may cases co-funded by industrial partners) are appearing all over the world. Leading hubs
including the Centre for Information Technology and Architecture (CITA) at the Royal Danish
Academy of Fine Arts in Copenhagen, the IDEAS Campus at UCLA in Los Angeles, the Spatial
Information Architecture Laboratory (SIAL) at the RMIT in Melbourne, The Why Factory at the TU
Delft, or the recently created Centre for Experimental Environments and Design (CEED) with its
connected network at the Bartlett in London. All these are possible due to the fact
that our contemporary schools are gradually changing their attitude. Regardless of whether
they are of a scientific background or not, any type of school is now assimilating more and
more sophisticated equipped that facilitates artistic and scientific domains of architecture to
come together in an unprecedented manner.
This shift is also announcing a clear drive towards much more collaborative work procedures
in professional practice that are created both within and outside the offices. Different from the
old model where a master-architect was able to define almost entirely the design of a building
(Oscar Niemeyer was probably the last living modernist who was able to do this), contempo-
rary architecture is the result of multi-layered processes in which many people take part. The
36 paradigmatic case of Steve Pike in 1999-2003 has shown how this has affected architectural

Fig. 16
Maria Knutsson-Hall – Slow motion architecture 2, Rio de Janeiro Brazil. 37

Fig. 17
Maria Knutsson-Hall – Sloth Architecture, Rio de Janeiro Brazil.

education as well. As a student he used the studio as a base from where he operated with a
substantial network of people and facilities, including UCL’s Micro-biology Department, glass
blowing at the Royal College of Art, CADCAM at the Bartlett, etc., all of which were necessary
to develop his biologically sensitive monitor vessels.
All the examples show how an intensified design-through-making attitude is becoming ever
more relevant in schools. Until the 90s, ideas and concepts were the driving force of archi-
tectural experimentation and innovation, while today the focus is much more driven by the
possibilities of materialised thought. The extraordinary technical means available do not satisfy
us with the illustrations of ideas anymore – our future requires physical demonstrations, which
is why the understanding of materials and tools is becoming so pertinent. 1:1 prototyping
is an essential way forward for students to learn how to apply their tools and techniques to
concepts, materials and spaces that are not only optimised and efficient, but also socially and
poetically meaningful.
In my article of 2012 I argued for the promotion of a much-needed experimental attitude in
higher education. I defended the idea that experiential and practical engagement with space
and materials should precede the conceptual understanding of it. This has made us change in
Unit 20 our work method in the last few years, with the effect that students now initiate their
year with a material investigation that is digitally fabricated, while at the same time establish-
ing the overall research premises of their design. 21 The point is that architecture students
need a much more in-depth sensibility for materials in a time where there are so many new
composites being developed and there is an acute need for a more sustainable approach to
our built environment. It is often shocking to realise how reduced the material vocabulary of
38 students is and how much this impoverishes the haptic and environmental dimension of what

they propose. Amongst many other possibilities are a plethora of materials with a new biologi-
cally infused physicality, including bio-concrete, bio-bricks, bio-plastics, bio-insulation, etc.

From what I have described so far, there are several aspects that I believe are relevant for what
is becoming the school of tomorrow. It is certainly a place influenced by a distinctive physical
surrounding, personalised studios and well-equipped workshops (including laboratories for
bio-technological and environmental research). It is also a place that implements a simplified
curriculum where design teaching regains its central role, and where an annual or even multi-
annual pedagogic structure offers students more time to develop their work in a personal, yet
also collaborative way. These schools are places that invest in providing students with both
creative and critical instruments, and where physical prototyping enables them not only to
illustrate but to materialise their thought, and thus reach out more directly to the society. It is
also a place of more interdisciplinarity promoted through an internally supported research-
by-design culture. But clearly, all of this only really makes sense if the school relies on the right
people! I refer here again to Peter Cook who has stated so often throughout his long academic
career that good teachers are key to attract good students who create great work, which in
turn is what defines the most attractive schools that appeal to the best teachers and students,
and so on… The magic synergy between tutor and student works through intense teamwork,
which has to give each project a sense of a conjoint mission and unpredictable exploration.
This spirit needs to be nurtured in order to be transmitted from generation to generation.
One should not forget here the tutor’s responsibility in guiding this process. With guidance I
mean not only a sense of direction and search for meaningfulness, but also the right balance
between the student’s intellectual freedom and a hands-on interference on student’s work if
this is required to achieve high-level results.
But such a school has also risks, which are down to the fact that they are financially demanding
and academically very intense. In fact, academic pressures nowadays are already triggering
an excessive academization of architecture schools. This is causing many academics to be
increasingly detached from professional practice. The high demands of teaching and research
procedures, along with knowledge transfer and heavy-duty enabling roles risks distracting
academics from what really matters: the production of great work. On the other hand, there
are also increasing obstacles for practitioners to be accepted in academia when research and
teaching responsibilities cannot be matched properly. In too many cases, the best practition-
ers are not attracted to university life because of the inflexibilities of academic protocols, low
pay, lack of research support, etc. I would argue here that it is pivotal for architecture schools
to create the right environment for practitioners to give their time to academia, especially for
those rare cases where great designers are also great teachers. Ultimately they are the best role
models for architecture students. Hence, it is key that the school of tomorrow avoids being too
demanding and convoluted that those from outside are excluded. During my Directorship at
the Bartlett I noticed this danger. I made a great effort to attract to the school more practicing
architects without at the same time overlooking all those extraordinary academics who have
chosen an exclusive career in higher education (and I was fortunate to have so many amazing
colleagues to work with). For me the school of tomorrow, rather than a defined educational
structure is a hub or platform for both academics and practitioners to network, to teach, to
research and produce; it is a place to question and to go beyond established formats. As a
result, I had to get teachers from wherever far they were; and that now means that in a school 39

like the Bartlett teachers commute from all over the UK and Europe on a weekly basis (Edinburg,
Manchester, Brighton, Barcelona, Athens, Bremen, Vienna, Copenhagen, Paris, Madrid, etc.) to
meet each other and be part of this conjoint endeavour. There is a new balance between those
from London and abroad, but also from within and outside of academia that has boosted a
renewed sense of confidence and courage in students to push the boundaries of experimenta-
tion with building design.
Before finalising I would like to refer one last time to my article of 2012 where I stated the impor-
tance of ‘Lateral Thinking’ as a vital method of creative problem solving. I extrapolated Edward
de Bono’s concept to the idea of ‘Lateral Design’ 22 and defined it as a quintessential method
that architects use to find new answers for an increasingly complex world – a place that is
environmentally unbalanced, financially volatile, with diminishing resources and with societies
in profound transformation. I spoke about the need for more non-linear thinking systems that
do not seek for obvious and predictable outcomes. The notion of ‘lateral’ implied thinking ‘out
of the box’ and more synthetic action that is prone to generate creative ideas across a variety
of disciplines by exploring intuitive, rather free flowing design possibilities. I also mentioned
the need for schools to encourage a more risk-taking attitude in students, allowing them to
‘fail’ rather than only pushing them to succeed. For me such method is essential to guarantee
an experimental work ethos in the future of architectural education.
In Unit 20 we have attempted this method and managed to produce an amazing array of
original and innovative design propositions. Students such as Wendy Teo integrated up to 6
different model making techniques in her exuberant design for an environmentally sustainable
new Central Station in Taipei; or Kasper Ax who worked on a project for an Ecumenical Centre of
Turin where, beside the programmatic complexities inherent to the project, he combined stud-
ies of Gestalt theory with acoustics of whisper chambers, employing for the first time a precise
control of 3D colour printing in the school. On a larger urban scale, Richard Beckett and Alex
Rizova developed an innovative agro-environmental strategy for Taiwanese cities, while Sam
Welham, Rui Liu and Jeff Lee interpreted the morphological complexity of Rio’s shantytowns to
create a ‘favela-script’ that proposed a new urban design paradigm for the city. Joanna Pawlas’s
acoustic shells and ‘audiobricks’ for a tower in Hong Kong, or Maria Knutsson-Hall’s sloth stud-
ies, and the resulting slow-motion architecture that worked like an architecturally embedded
ecology of growth, all form part of an in-depth research of lateral design.
An intense and refined portfolio culture has underpinned the work of these students who were
able to develop a great repertoire of designs. More than a simple documentation process, the
portfolio as a methodology allows students to create a feedback mechanism whereby thoughts
materialise into drawings or models that in turn influence their next steps of design. Ideas
are constantly recycled and the sequence of small projects creates the path for the student’s
supra-project: the creation of their own architectural personality for their future career. Work
submitted every year to the RIBA President’s Silver medals awards has proven how diverse and
in-depth explorations students from all over the UK and increasingly schools from abroad are
undertaking with the help of portfolios. Through this method it is possible to develop what
is widely accepted as ‘research-by-design’ even in undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
I would like to conclude by mentioning John Taylor Gatto and Sir Ken Robinson, both of
whom have in their own way promoted principles in primary and secondary education that
I see of relevance for higher education too. On the one hand, Gatto’s argument about ‘less
schooling and more education’ echoes my own conviction that we need to reduce the weight

of our curricula and give students more room to develop critical, experimental and happy
minds (I am here responding to the excessive levels of anxiety and pain felt by students in
our contemporary schools). 23 Robinson, on the other hand, speaks for the necessity of an
education that truly nurtures (rather than undermines) creativity, which again reflects my
own thoughts 24 - and I would add that for this we require the right work environment, support
and definitely the right people.
As teachers today, we need to anticipate the architects of tomorrow. We need to give our stu-
dents not only the most advanced skills, but also trigger their sense of curiosity and openness
to embrace novelty and change. They need to learn how to learn, in order to be able to respond
to forthcoming challenges. We need to stimulate new collaborative work and innovative forms
of practice (probably very different from the formats we currently know) and make our students
pro-active, basically giving them scope and courage to develop their own architectural identity
and thoughts. Ultimately we need to awaken their inner dreams as architects and give them
through the education of today the tools to realise the architecture of tomorrow.

1 Cruz, Marcos. ‘Lateral Design – Towards a more Experimental Approach to Architectural Education’, in
Spiridonidis, Constantin; Voyatzaki, Maria (eds.). Educating Architects towards Innovative Architecture,
Proceedings Catalogue, EAAE Transactions on Architectural Education no46, 2010 pp. 21-29
2 Main building designed by Félix Duban, opened in 1830
3 Main building designed by Theophil Hansen and built between 1872-1877
4 Building designed by Jorge Moreira, opened in 1957
5 Building designed by João Batista Vilanova e Artigas, opened in 1961
6 Main building designed by Josep Maria Segarra Solsona, opened in 1961; extension design by José
Antonio Coderch between 1978-85
7 Tower block at the Ernst-Reuter-Platz designed by Bernhard Hermkes between 1966-68; Auditorium
and library designed by Hans Scharoun between 1963-68
8 Amongst others interventions in the new premises, stand out MVRDV’s design for the Tribune of
The Why Factory, with furniture by Richard Hutten, built in 2009.
9 Building designed by John Andrews, opened in 1972
10 Building designed by Han Baode between 1974-76
11 Main building designed by Sebatian Fulcado & Carlos Azofeifa, opened in 2006
12 Buildings are designed by an unusual variety of architects, including Sergio Larrain Garcia Moreno,
Jorge Swinburn, Teodoro Fernández, Smiljan Radic, Cecilia Puga, Alejandro Aravena, Sebastian Irar-
razaval, etc.
13 Eric Owen Moss. Director’s message on SciArc’s website, 2014
14 Note that the Bartlett is decant into an empty three storey high warehouse in the vicinity of UCL in
July 2014 which is certainly going to have a great impact on the school’s operations, while Wates
House is being refurbished and extended to accommodate the school from 2016 onwards.
15 Building in Dessau designed by Walter Gropius between 1925-26
16 Building façade designed by Nicolau Nasoni, 17th century
17 Howard, Rachel. ‘London’s top five quirky restaurants and bars’, in The Guardian, Friday 27th of July
18 In their final report of the evaluation of architecture schools in Vienna in 2003, Peter Cook, Luise
King, Nat Chard and Marcos Cruz identified the risk of too much student anonymity in the rather 41

untransparent and bureaucratic structure of large universities. The team referred to the syndrome of
the ‘grey student’ who is enrolled without, however, been ever seen. The grey student can be around
for many years, often manipulating the system by choosing the easiest way through the curriculum
to afford the least exposure.
19 Cruz, Marcos. ‘Lateral Design – Towards a more Experimental Approach to Architectural Education’, in
Spiridonidis, Constantin; Voyatzaki, Maria (eds.). Educating Architects towards Innovative Architecture,
Proceedings Catalogue, EAAE Transactions on Architectural Education no46, 2010 p. 28
20 I am here clearly making a case for the atelier rather than office environment as it is seen in the
majority of practices today.
21 MArch Unit 20 has been run by Marcos Cruz since 1999. He taught with Salvador Perez Arroyo between
1999 and 2004 and with Marjan since 2004. Several other tutors got involved temporarily in the unit,
including Shaun Murray (2005-2006), Hannes Mayer (2011-12) and Richard Beckett (2012-14).
22 De Bono, Edward. The Use of Lateral Thinking, Cape Publishing, 1967
23 Taylor Gatto, John. Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, New Society
Publishers 2002
24 Robinson, Ken. TED Talk ‘How Schools Kill Creativity’

Images info

Image 1
‘ALGA(E)ZEBO – WONDER, INCREDIBLE INSTALLATIONS’ for the London Olympics (General View)
Location: Euston Square Gardens, London UK
Design team: marcosandmarjan, London UK
Manufacturer: Formstaal GmbH & Co.KG, Stralsund Germany
Engineering: Bollinger-Grohman-Schneider, Vienna Austria
Photobioreactor: Richard Beckett - DMC London; UCL Algal Biotechnology, London UK (special thanks
to Dr Saul Purton, Marco Lizzul, Lamya A Haj, Laura Stoffels, Joanna Szaub, as well as Joanne Field at the
Culture Collection of Algae and Protozoa, Scottish Marine Institute)
Photo credit: Virgilio Ferreira

Image 2
‘ALGA(E)ZEBO – WONDER, INCREDIBLE INSTALLATIONS’ for the London Olympics (Inverted Foliage)
Location: Euston Square Gardens, London UK
Design team: marcosandmarjan, London UK
Manufacturer: Formstaal GmbH & Co.KG, Stralsund Germany
Engineering: Bollinger-Grohman-Schneider, Vienna Austria
Photobioreactor: Richard Beckett - DMC London; UCL Algal Biotechnology, London UK (special thanks
to Dr Saul Purton, Marco Lizzul, Lamya A Haj, Laura Stoffels, Joanna Szaub, as well as Joanne Field at the
Culture Collection of Algae and Protozoa, Scottish Marine Institute)
Photo credit: BREAD

Image 3
‘ALGA(E)ZEBO – WONDER, INCREDIBLE INSTALLATIONS’ for the London Olympics (Bioreactors)
Location: Euston Square Gardens, London UK
Design team: marcosandmarjan, London UK
Manufacturer: Formstaal GmbH & Co.KG, Stralsund Germany
42 Engineering: Bollinger-Grohman-Schneider, Vienna Austria

Photobioreactor: Richard Beckett - DMC London; UCL Algal Biotechnology, London UK (special thanks
to Dr Saul Purton, Marco Lizzul, Lamya A Haj, Laura Stoffels, Joanna Szaub, as well as Joanne Field at the
Culture Collection of Algae and Protozoa, Scottish Marine Institute)
Photo credit: BREAD

Image 4a/b
NURBSTER XI – Stand for the Reveal Festival, Camley Street Park
Location: Camley Street Natural Park, London UK
Organisation: Stefanie Mills and Marina Chang from the Development Planning Unit, UCL
Design: marcosandmarjan with Unit 20 students (Aleksandrina Rizova, Richard Beckett, Wendy Teo, Linda
Hagberg, Amanda Bate, Leonhard Clemens, Luca Rizzi Brignoli)
Photo credit: Paul Smoothy

Image 5
Buildings by Bartlett practicing tutors 1
Teams: EcoLogicStudio; Ben Addy/Moxon; SOMA; David Garcia Studio; Peter Cook and Colin Fournier;
Niall McLaughlin Architects; Josep Mias Architects; Ashton Porter Architects

Image 6
Buildings by Bartlett practicing tutors 2
Teams: Niall McLaughlin Architects; Josep Mias Architects; Storp Weber Architects; Matthew Butcher/
Postworks; marcosandmarjan; Izaskun Chinchilla Architects; Ben Addy/Moxon; CJ Lim/Studio 8

Image 7
Buildings by Bartlett practicing tutors 3
Teams: SOMA; Niall McLaughlin Architects; Christine Hawley Architects; marcosandmarjan; Josep Mias
Architects; Sixteen Makers; YA Architects; Ashton Porter Architects; 42 Architects

Image 8
New Central Station for Taipei, Taiwan
Design: Wendy Teo / Bartlett MArch Unit 20
Supervision: Marcos Cruz / Marjan Colletti

Image 9
Ecummenical Centre for Turin, Italy
Design: Kasper Ax / Bartlett MArch Unit 20
Supervision: Marcos Cruz / Marjan Colletti

Image 10
Agro-Environmental Urbanism in Taipei, Taiwan
Design: Richard Beckett, Alexa Rizova / Bartlett MArch Unit 20
Supervision: Marcos Cruz / Marjan Colletti

Image 11
Favela-Script for Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Design: Sam Welham, Rui Liu, Jeffrey Lee / Bartlett MArch Unit 20
Supervision: Marcos Cruz / Hannes Mayer

Image 12
Sonic Morphologies 1 / Audiobricks
Design: Joanna Pawlas / Bartlett MArch Unit 20
Supervision: Marcos Cruz / Marjan Colletti / Richard Beckett 43

Image 13
Sonic Morphologies 2
Design: Joanna Pawlas / Bartlett MArch Unit 20
Supervision: Marcos Cruz / Marjan Colletti / Richard Beckett

Image 14
Sonic Morphologies 3
Design: Joanna Pawlas / Bartlett MArch Unit 20
Supervision: Marcos Cruz / Marjan Colletti / Richard Beckett

Image 15
Slow-motion Architecture 1
Design: Maria Knuttson-Hall / Bartlett MArch Unit 20
Supervision: Marcos Cruz / Hannes Mayer

Image 16
Slow-motion Architecture 2
Design: Maria Knuttson-Hall / Bartlett MArch Unit 20
Supervision: Marcos Cruz / Hannes Mayer

Image 17
Sloth Architecture
Design: Maria Knuttson-Hall / Bartlett MArch Unit 20
Supervision: Marcos Cruz / Hannes Mayer

Per Olaf Fjeld
Professor, Oslo School of Architecture and Design, Norway
Motivations and Crossroads

Over the years, we have had many discussions together, where bits and pieces of our own per-
sonalities and architectural beliefs have surfaced. I have always taken the voice of an architect
and teacher, and this will be my voice this afternoon. My conversation with you is a synthesis
of many thoughts and ideas inspired by our discussions and a few individuals who throughout
my teaching career and practice have been important: as inspiration and in helping to focus
on architecture and not everything else with the potential to confuse or waylay the situation.


I am in no way resistant to change, but one has to learn to navigate through feeling, perhaps
more than information and meaning, because as part of the biological world you have to
regard yourself as complete, a complete cycle feelings and all. Thus in this sense, feeling is
not an insular subjectivity, and as such the single voice within a group can have a profound
meaning and effect. Without navigation what is the information and meaning?
There are very few truly significant architectural discoveries, and those that make a mark have
always been dependent upon an understanding and inspiration of the past, of what has tran-
spired in nature or society on all levels, large or small. Today, these discoveries are very easy to
miss due to the rather prevalent and naïve belief that architecture as a solo endeavor is capable
of coming up with something new every day. The core of architecture is not innovation, but
to understand or sense architectural depth may be looked upon as a form of innovation, but
when innovation for all its good intensions evolves into a business or a form of speculation
it defeats humanness.
I will try to be as direct as I can, which is probably not very direct, rather more roundabout,
to speak about the humanness in architecture, not as a word or an intellectual gesture, but
rather to come closer to an understanding of architecture where human beings express a deep
cognizance of the physical world. Today, architecture´s inertia is the new challenge, because
its tools indicate an easy and quick perfection. We desire it to be much more than it has the
capacity to be. As architecture crawls into the future, it makes its own important history, a story
full of traces and memories, positive and negative, we cannot totally disregard.
This brings me to something Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote in a personal notebook in 1947,
“architecture immortalizes and glorifies something” and “when there is nothing to glorify there
can be no architecture”. This remark has interested me from the first time I read it as it gener-
ates the question; what does architecture glorify today? This is more a challenge and certainly
not an easy question to answer. I find the word glorify difficult in today´s situation. Is it more
what motivates architecture today? In order to challenge this question and to rethink the word
glorify, I sensed at once that it was crucial to be personal, to be cognizant of one’s personal
sphere of experience and open for the possibility of not accepting standard predetermined
answers or understandings of situation. In many ways, we no longer have the capacity to fully
control, comprehend, and distinguish between our private mental constructions from the
pre -cooked images of global mental constructions, and it is not always clear when these two
mental constructions interchange.
I have always admired individuals whom driven by a certain type of passion have an energy
that makes possible the concentration needed to enter the creative process. It appears as
46 though they often find their information and precise content within the rituals of everyday life.

They form a present without a filter, without a buffer, direct, and this inspiration comes from
within, whether it is an individual or group. Unfortunately it takes a long time to realize what
this means. We take the creative act for granted in the belief that information and knowledge
will be enough: enough both in relation to the process itself and the critical understanding
of its physical result.
What motivates you to be an architect and teacher? Does your motivation strive for a shared
or common platform that goes beyond your personal requirements, beyond “self”?
In relation to my own situation in life, as an architect and teacher, I feel the first step in motiva-
tion has to be personal. With this, I am not referring to motivation that fulfills personal require-
ments, but a precise, critical understanding of the motivations that lie within the private sphere.
I will mention some of my motivations, since they may not be the same as yours.

First Μotivation:

One is never able to capture architecture. Architecture has a depth-capacity that is dependent
upon a creative act; meaning the moment a spatial discovery occurs, it is already propelling
towards the next discovery. This reminds me of what Louis Kahn said once in the classroom,
“never be afraid to offer your ideas and work to others, the moment they understand them,
you are already somewhere else in your thoughts“.
Therefore, to search for a comprehension of architectural depth is a recurrent motivation; to
understand or to be aware of architecture’s potential (its spatial potential) is a continuous cycle
of inspiration. To interpret change into an architectural space requires a careful reading and
re-discovery of human content. The depth of its success will depend upon how, when and to
what degree we are able to spatially transform this content into architectural limitations. With
this I mean architecture can´t do everything! To make superficial changes is easy and may
appear to respond to the task at hand, but to go deeper into the core of an architectural task
proves to require an incredible concentration and energy.

Second Motivation:

We are constantly searching for and in need of space, and architecture has the capacity to
make an offer, not just take on a set formula, but also initiate change. It is not a static situa-
tion. Our need to possess or reclaim physical space as human beings surfaces every day. The
second motivation lies in sensing social, cultural or physical change and understanding how
this affects architecture.

Third Motivation:

This is the deep relationship between nature and architecture, and here I do not regard nature
as a negative resistance force or hindrance, rather a strong motivation with the capacity to
propel the comprehension and use of architectural space in fruitful and challenging directions.
This is also true for an urban condition; what is nature in this situation?


Fig. 1 Fig. 2
Sketch Sverre Fehn. Woodland crematorium,
Private notebook. Stockholm, Gunnar Asplund.
Photo: POF.

Fig. 3 Fig. 4
Woodland chapel Gunnar Asplund/ Sigurd Town Hall Gøteborg Sweden, Gunnar Asplund (Taken
48 Leverenz. Photo: POF. from book).

There are many other aspects that can capture one´s architectural interest, but for the above
motivations to have clarity and precision they require a belief in architecture itself. If not, archi-
tecture may only survive as a profession or business since some form of shelter will always be
needed, but the essence of architecture with its unique capacity to survive over time through
all the flux of change, this will probably be left behind in the rush to satisfy the present.

One question that pops up related to these motivations is the relationship between the indi-
vidual and the group. Are we able to talk about a common, accessible, shared, driving force
within architecture? In order to pursue this question further, the Swedish architect Gunnar
Asplund’s work and life shed some light on this question.
Over the years, I have come to understand Asplund’s architectural importance on many levels,
his work of course, but also how many architects directly or indirectly were deeply affected by
his approach and his concerns for a shared architecture in the broadest human sense.
Asplund was born in1885, and faced early in his career great changes in technology, medicine,
social and political upheaval, unrest in Finland and Baltic countries, World War I, and the great
depression. How he understood and interpreted these changes and events into his personal
sphere affected how he approached architecture.
He was the head architect for the Stockholm exhibition in 1930, which was a showcase for
innovative Scandinavian industry and its political experiment around social welfare, new labor
laws, land laws and healthcare. The exhibition presented architecture based on efficient, clean,
light and airy solutions that utilized mass production and prefabrication. This clearly paralleled
previous European exhibitions of the time, but the difference lay in motivation. It spoke directly
towards the average citizen designing for mundane everyday life tasks, health and wellbeing
of the body. It was inclusive, not exclusive in its audience.
The exhibition was a success in part due to Asplund’s influence and work, and yet this exhibi-
tion interests me far less in relation to my argument. Rather, it is his private work from the office,
teaching, and how he placed this into a life context. In many ways, Asplund´s teaching and
thinking ran parallel to another great architect/educator from the North who unfortunately left
Finland in the early 1920´s for the USA, Eilel Saarinan. He too had many of the same concerns.
A few years after his arrival in the USA, he headed the newly established architecture school
at the Cranbrook Academy. His built work in both Finland and USA was an inspiration for the
next generation of architects, and not in the least his capacity as a teacher at Cranbrook. Alvar
Aalto spoke several times about the importance of both these architect/teachers for the Nordic
countries development into the 20th century.
This picture is the entrance to Asplund’s Woodland Cemetery outside Stockholm. It was built
some years after the exhibition. Even today, one senses an architectural understanding of our
shared human experiences and situation. In this picture, the soft winter landscape leads up to
a place where the ashes are thrown out into the landscape offering life presence even when
related to death. He developed a formal language where he very skillfully unified functional-
ism and classicism losing the time label of style. It communicates directly, as the space and its
image are one and the same. It is timeless architecture not empowered with authority, fear
or uncertainty, but rather generosity, approachability. The people who work here are deeply
attached to their work place; the landscape involves the local population beyond its intended
function. It has been loved almost from its very beginning.

Fig. 5
Salt Institute, California, Louis I
Kahn. Photo: POF.

Fig. 6
Birapuera park Sao Paulo Oskar
Niemeyer. Photo: POF.

Fig. 8
Sketch Sverre Fehn. Private

Fig. 7
Sketch Sverre Fehn. Private
50 notebook.

In the Forest Chapel 1918-1920 in partnership with Sigurd Lewerentz (who designed the gate
and surrounding landscape), the relationship between nature and culture as architecture is
very clear. The chapel is part of a large spatial sequence. You discover the chapel by walking
through the woods.
The new addition to the Göteborg Town Hall, 1934-7) curiously offers a flat hierarchy from the
plan to the simplest detail. Independent of rank or position, it makes no distinction between
users. The lawyers, the prisoners, the visitors and administration are treated spatially, as equal.
Asplund carries this flat hierarchy farther in his approach to the existing old town hall; the
new addition respects the physical presence of the old building neither more nor less. No
knowledge of architecture or its technology is necessary to enter this space. Having visited
these buildings over and over again, for decades, these three works continue to touch me,
never foreign, never outside of the present. Asplund navigates his architecture with a clear
understanding of humanness. He also valued this comprehension as an essential element in
his teaching, but he knew it could only be reached through some form of architectural depth.
To understand the door as an opening was complex enough for a student task. He attracted
the most talented young architects of the time. Alvar Aalto and Arne Jacobsen both regarded
him as their mentor and teacher. Arne Jacobsen as a mature young architect would arrive
every summer to work without pay in Asplund´s office. He returned for ten summers just to
learn. In this period, more or less by word of mouth, many would visit his works including
Louis Kahn who visited Stockholm on his first visit to Europe when the library had been open
only a few months.
In Asplund’s office, there were no repetitive, work or timesaving methods; each new project
was a blank slate. Each task required the same care, a distinct connection between architec-
ture and life. The value of architecture belonged to the value of life. In short, this meant that
architecture and the architect were very aware of their obligations and task.

I acknowledge that group heroes have replaced the individual master architect of the past, but
in order to go deeper into this search or understanding of a relationship between humanness
and architecture I need to talk about a few more individuals, and the first is Louis I Kahn. His
texts are often regarded as poetic, cryptic, and suggest more of a visual image than that of
content, but if one goes deeper into the text they reveal a strong sense of humanity, and in
particular when he talks about the architecture of institution and the shared human aspiration.
Kahn´s concept of institution grew out of a search for architecture that could set in motion a
sense of collective identity, intuitively sensed as human agreement. Each form of institution
carries an individual identity whether it is a house, street or school, and this in turn gives the
needed separation from one institution to another. However, he also felt that our institutions
are on trial because the inspiration that first called them into being is no longer felt. They
operate simply as a matter of course. He often commented that human agreement is a sense
of rapport, working in unison without the need to be understood as an example, rather as a
demand for presence. Kahn would then comment further that new spaces come only from a
new sense of human agreement: one that affirms a promise of life. This new agreement will
reveal new access and the human support for their establishment.
It is interesting to note that in his early article on monumentality Kahn rejected that contem-
porary society had no common image of itself strong enough to lead architecture towards 51

Fig. 9
Museum at Hamar Norway,
Sverre Fehn. Photo: POF.

Fig. 10
Glaser Museum, Norway, Sverre
Fehn. Photo: POF.

Fig. 11
The Grohshennig House, Per Olaf
Fjeld. Photo: POF.

Fig. 12
Oslo Town Museum, Per Olaf
Fjeld. Photo: POF.

a sense of communality. Within these thoughts, he is also expressing a strong belief in the
future. In each time-layer, there is also an architectural search.
Another teacher who taught on and off at the University of Pennsylvania at the same time
was Lewis Mumford. His writing presented many challenging thoughts for architects in this
period, and his book “The Transformation of Man” from 1966 was on my reading list while in
Kahn’s Master Class. This work took up many of the same issues Kahn pondered over in relation
to architecture: man the biological species and man as human. Mumford stresses in this book
that the need to become human is man’s first and perhaps deepest desire and that nature
provides the material but man must affect the change. I still find this a challenging book in
relation to architectural discourse.
Kahn was very aware of architectural limitation. Not all thoughts and all intentions have archi-
tectural potential, and if potential is present, only a creative act can release the inspiration
and intentions towards an architectural space. How to reach a collective sensibility through
an architectural means is our on-going challenge.
In contrast to Kahn’s´ set sequence of spaces, Oscar Niemeyer’s Birapuera Park Pavilion interests
me in its search towards a human architecture. From the first visit, and more and more over the
years, I have been very moved by this space, such generosity and spatial freedom. Here one
experiences a space with many people, and yet in all this shared spatial experience there is the
opportunity to form an individual, internal room. Under the roof, inside this built landscape
you sense the freedom of both being inside and outside, belonging to a larger space, but at
the same time it forms an intimate space, physical contact. The task does not really have other
obligations than to support your body. You are constantly defining and redefining your space.
A couple of years ago in the Pompidou Center, and completely by chance, I saw a short film on
this structure complimented by texts from a short story, “Marquise”, by Dominique Gonzalez
Foerster. These texts describe a child’s visit to this pavilion. The author’s childhood reflections
center upon experiencing everything under the marquise moving including a column.
This story brings to mind a sketch by the Norwegian architect Sverre Fehn, “A child’s meeting
with his first column” and the social construct behind Fehn’s work. He was a great teacher as
he had the ability to simplify the most complex of architectural thoughts. He was able to keep
a direct and deep concentration upon the core of any problem he confronted, and the sketch
in combination with the formation of a story around each task would find a solution. He too
was very concerned with the strong link between nature and culture. He spoke often of the
animal in humans, and that it is through this comprehension we understand we are part of
nature. However, he also thought we are in the process of eliminating the animal in man along
with the precision inherent to instinct. More important, this situation would in time influence
our precision related to place. More and more, we abstract our relationship to nature. We have
outgrown the animal and have seemingly achieved a separation.
Fehn talked about a room within oneself; that each one of us has a personal space. This room
is not separated from the room of nature, nor is it separated from architectural space. It is the
room around the relationships, which shape and frame our daily life. “Man with his shadow, man
with construction, the tree. The shadow melts them together, and he is no longer alone.” Sverre Fehn
He saw a clear relationship between architecture and structure as a balance of forces, a rela-
tionship between material as mass and its potential to bring forth a space. Even at the young
age of 32, when faced with pressure to cut some of the trees under the construction of the 53

Fig. 13
The Kimsaas House, Per Olaf
Fjeld. Photo: POF.

Fig. 14
The Bjercke Cottage, Per Olaf
Fjeld. Photo: POF.

Fig. 15
In the Studio, Emily R Fjeld,
Per Olaf Fjeld. Photo: Thomas
54 Wiesner.

Nordic Pavilion in the Venice Biennale he remarked: “In the relationship between technology and
nature, under all circumstances nature will win in the end, so the trees should stay.”
The Hedmark County Museum in Hamar, start 1967, brings up another aspect. Throughout his
career, Fehn was interested in ruins, the ruin as architecture. In this museum, the challenge
was to emphasize time aspects within the building and surroundings, to release forgotten
images and to strengthen those that are not easy to see. The building embraces an architectural
geography where the relationship between the local and global are regarded as a continu-
ation of a greater time aspect. Little supplementary light is added, thus the light of the ruin
remains undisturbed. The ruin is the main construction. New constructions must respond
and adjust to this main construction. The old structure of the barn is always in command but
it simultaneously supports the new structure. The museum is never static. It adjusts to ongo-
ing archeological digs, to seasons (there is no heat) and seasonal light. As the archeological
dig continues each season, new finds are lifted up into the museum and given a new story,
a new connection.
The architectural horizon, where does one put man between heaven and earth? This was
always a major theme in much of Fehn´s work. Throughout his career, to lift something up,
out of the ground was a very strong spatial event.
Fehn often remarked that the Glacier Museum was the most difficult job in his carrier. He was
in doubt if he dared to build it. How does one tackle the room of nature when it is so strong?
How will architecture manage contact with something so powerful? He simply dropped a
new stone into the landscape. This form in some way or another manages to make contact
with the large room of nature, the landscape. This contact is the architecture. He had many
jokes about designing an exhibition about ice: what with the subject matter so nearby, just
outside the door, and the impossibility of preserving it inside. In fact, in all his museum work,
he was always chipping away at the core essence and purpose of museum. This questioning
was perhaps his greatest gift to his students.

I have always had a strong interest in architecture. I think the harsh climate in the North was
a factor. As a child, I was fascinated with how you could play or ski for hours outside during
the cold, snowy winter days, just in the knowledge that Mom had the wood stove going full
blast inside. I never considered it as a competition between two spaces, as they were both
complete. Some of this experience between body, nature, and built space has never left me.
There are many circumstantial events in life, but the way you live and act as a person is not
removed from the people, places, and circumstances life offers. As time passes, all experiences
appear to connect to one another in a rather peculiar way.
I started my architectural studies in the USA on the west coast early 1967. Light material, light
structures; we drew them, built them full scale, and at the end of the semester lived in them
for weeks. After graduation, I entered the Louis I Kahn Master class at Univ. of Pennsylvania. A
fantastic time! It was a small very international class. It was not just Kahn that opened my mind,
but also many others who were part of this environment; Robert LeRicolais, Ian McHarg, Buck-
minster Fuller and a host of visitors. I also met my wife Emily during this period. Even before I
finished at the Univ. of Penn., I knew I wanted a life that included not just working in an office,
but also writing, teaching and with luck a small studio. Emily, a painter, was also looking for
many of the same things, so a close working relationship developed early in our lives together. 55

Fig. 16
The Querini Stapalia Fundation,
Venice, Carlo Scarpa. Photo: POF.

Fig. 17
Mediatheque, Sendai Japan,
Toyo Ito. Photo: POF.

Fig. 18
Yokohama Terminal, Foreign
Office. Photo: POF.

Returning to Oslo, I landed a job in Sverre Fehn´s office, and one of the first things he did was
insist that Emily and I borrow his new car and visit work by Asplund, Lewerentz, and a house
he built in Sweden. I have to admit I think I missed a lot for fear of scraping up the car. I stayed
in his office for two years until he ran out of work. Shortly after this, I set up my own practice or
studio and began to teach with Fehn at the Oslo School of Architecture. We taught together
for about 17 years.
The Oslo School of Architecture was one of the first schools to join ILAUD, International Labora-
tory of Architecture and Urban Design. I became very involved with the organization through
the school and worked with Giancarlo de Carlo for 15 summers in Siena, Urbino, San Marino
and Venice. It was a very challenging and interesting time. De Carlo´s old TeamX friends were
a tough school and into this environment came other strong individuals and complex think-
ing about core issues.

The following built work from my studio, directly relates to how Emily and I have worked and
lived. (Four houses and a museum each with a story related to motivation were presented in the
During the years as assistant head and later head of the Oslo School, I was not able to keep
the office going, but the desire to build never left me, so I began to make furniture. In the
beginning, I had few tools, little money, and time. During this period, ILAUD also helped in
keeping active; the expectations around the summer projects and written work were intense.
The word mass has been used a lot at that time, all materials independent of their substance
or materiality were discussed as mass, almost a liquid independent of both weight and grav-
ity. One year in ILAUD this really bothered me, especially as a teacher. Therefore, I staged a
situation around the relationship of the body and a physical resistance force: not just talk
about this relationship but also build a resistance force machine. Finding the moment of
equilibrium when the force contained in the plaster as it sets equaled the force stirring the
mass was exciting as a teacher. I have been very lucky to be allowed to continue experiment-
ing when needed in school.
How have Emily and I personally shaped our lives in relation to work? It has been important
for us not to be dependent upon others in order to produce, to be active. In a sense, we have
tried to live on the path we chose. At times, it is small- scale work, OK. To be close to one´s own
work, and to except it for what it is, gives personal strength and insight.
For a teacher, the Oslo School of Architecture and Design is a very good institution as it allows
for diversity. There is still respect for diversity in the teaching staff, and this is a tough stance.
Personally, I believe the desire to teach is in part an affinity. It is not a regular job, it can never
be. There is no start-button in relation to creativity. The relationship between the teacher and
student is a waiting situation embedded in concentration. What and where is the spark that
fires up the creative process in a student, no matter how difficult or alien it is to your own
interests? I have only three points that have always been important for me in teaching:
• For the student to gradually state his/her architectural voice
• For the student to be aware of his /her own creative process
• To be able to transform thoughts into 3 dimensional space

The Crossover

Crossovers are important in that they may serve as a link between one´s own thoughts and
a shared idea. Within each crossover´s identity, they have clarity in relation to the way they
support ideas. Some have served as inspiration for many years, and yet there is always the
possibility to add new ones.
The first time I visited Monet’s house and garden, I was not just taken by its beauty, but also that
he did not seem to separate his work as a painter from being in the garden and taking part in
its growth cycles. Both situations had an impact in how he formed his life and work. Planning,
splitting perennials, moving plants, and new seeds all fed into his inner room of contempla-
tion much the same as the first thoughts around a newly stretched canvas. His inner room was
fluid, not rigid. He was present in the garden taking part in its growth, painting, observing,
and at the same time consciousness of his family in the background. Life´s complexity fed and
brought life to his work.

In a very straightforward way, Richard Serra’s project just outside Reykjavik, Iceland generates
a relationship between the local and the global. He removed these stone columns formed by
natural cracks from a mountainside close by. He then transported the columns to an island
just off Reykjavik transforming nature into culture. Suddenly, the island as a context was given
a scale, and it is the same with architecture. Each building makes a mark, a footprint on the
surface of the earth. It occupies space and serves.
This bathhouse by Siza in Porto is a very simple structure that connects to the urban context to
conditions related to nature. The bath is a complex linier system of walls where each wall has
a precise relationship to the sun, thus the border between the exterior and the interior is light
and shadow. The building works with the tide like a clock offering activities and measuring
time. Water and light translate into architectural instruments.
Carlo Scarpa’s museum entrance and garden in Venice appear structurally rather simple, but
the form generates a spatial complexity of inside/ outside/ in-between/ close and far away. It
mediates between nature and the immediacy of our presence.
These two drawings from Bernard Tschumi are challenging. This notion of an architecture con-
sisting of several layers where each has a clear identity of its own, yet at the same time they
work together as a whole is interesting. The layering has the capacity to motivate architecture
towards infrastructure, towards new relationships.
Unlimited choice has clearly been the business strategy for years and with this comes the
“image” of uniqueness through small-articulated variations. There is actually no real difference,
just the possibility of unlimited choice. In order for this to continue, the familiar is always the
issue and equally the substance that is changed: a transformation of something already well
known or well established. In Joseph Cornell’s boxes, there is change inside the frame, but the
frame as the main structure or idea remains the same. What happens and what is the substance
when this frame is borrowed and houses other’s variations?
If we look upon our built environment, the large manmade cities, Cairo or New Delhi, we can
see that most of their natural borders are overrun. This fabricated growth pattern continues
to spread. It is quite apparent that many large cities have reached a physical and mental com-

plexity that is extremely difficult to comprehend. In lack of a common direction, but armed
with a rather naïve belief in growth as a measure of progress and success, we continue to
pressure our most precious resources. Relative to size, the built environment and the direct
consequences of this built mass are seldom understood or interpreted through the capacity
of original site, thus place identity only exists as built context. To have an awareness of what
this means spatially, we have to be inside this context as architects. We have to participate
physically, heart and soul, and through this process establish the LOCAL: to understand our
presence within the physical local
In Louis I Kahn’s project for the Mikveh Israel Synagogue, Philadelphia, he invents the idea
of a hollow column and releases another type of freedom in relation to material, structure
and light. It is a pure spatial discovery. Even today, I do not feel this project is completely
understood. The structure of the main room is liberated from the responsibility of light, in
that the hollow columns serve both as a light source and as a space to inhabit. Toyo ITO’s
Médiathèque interpretation of Kahns´ idea of the hollow column is valuable example of this
potential. Due to the open structure, I sense another and more open, ordered, but at the
same time somewhat casual relationship between person and space. I was lucky to visit the
Shandai Library just after it opened and again struck by structure as spatial force. The build-
ing is rather modest from the outside, but inside very strong, and like the Mediathèque it
is both open and spatially generous. The floor follows the terrain outside, and the structure
offers warmth and a diffuse interior daylight. For me both the buildings have confronted and
spatially interpreted human change.
You might give the same compliment to this pavilion in Yokohama by Foreign Office, where
the context works as an intricate part of space itself. Outside you sense a spatial freedom,
and inside you are aware of a building that works like infrastructure. Logistics that set the
spatial attitude, but when the large ships dock beside this structure, a new facade is added
to the space.

Most of these crossover examples are not architecture that relies upon visual tokens, rather
architecture that depends upon a comprehension of relationships that empower space as an
expression. In a time when space seems to move away from physical awareness and into a
virtual sensibility, these buildings are a reminder of an architectural presence that meets our
needs and desires to be part of physical space. The critical issue as both teachers and architects
is that we must find ways to comprehend space anew. We simply have to dig deeper into the
nature of architecture, but the content to support and compliment this “dig” has to arrive out
of human consciousness. It is here young architects have an enormous opening if they are
able to spatially grasp what change may offer. Architecture must not make nature or space
lifeless, in the sense that it makes life, less. In all of this, it is interesting to note that we still
project from earth; it remains our base with all its natural laws.
My father was 102 when he passed away, and towards the end he complained to me that the
average day, went too fast, and I quote him: “By the time I finally get my socks on, it is time to
take them off again.” I have learned that reflections have to come from within, and that the
true test is the way each one of us understand the world and what we have in common. Simply
to live is to be concentrated and alert, and in this is the capacity for change. It is the content
of the average day that has to be sensed over and over again, and in this is also the average 59

day of others. To interpret human change into architectural space requires careful reading
and the rediscovery of human content. The depth of its success will depend upon how, when,
and to what degree we are able to spatially transform human diversity and complexity into
architectural limitations.
It is the understanding of the link between me, the other, and nature that is our motivation and
crossroad. Somewhere in there, the future of architecture will also re-emerge.

Alfonso Gómez
Executive President, Innovation Center, Catholic University of Chile
Revisiting Design in the era of Innovation
Challenges and Opportunities
for Schools of Design and Architecture

Innovation: a passing buzzword?

The term “innovation” has become so predominant and omnipresent in our times, that it is only
fair to ask us if it refers to just another fashionable concept, as was the case with “reengineering”
a few years ago. I will argue that that is not the case; the pervasive presence of innovation can
be linked to pressing social and environmental challenges on the one hand, and to mankind’s
accelerating capacity to develop new knowledge in such foundational areas as computer sci-
ence, biotechnology, and nanotechnology, on the other. Despite living in an era of economic
and social uncertainty there is not a single author that suggests that the production of new
knowledge resulting from scientific research will slow down in any foreseeable future. If any-
thing, the opposite will be the case.
Stuart Kauffman 1 links the origin of our innovation era with the exponential number of combi-
nations that are possible when we crisscross new materials, inventions and devices blooming
like mushrooms from a wide spectrum of industries and disciplines. He illustrates his rational
with the example of the first successful heavier-than-air flying machine. The Wright brothers’
airplane, one of the most significant innovations ever, is actually a novel combination of ele-
ments invented long before, as is the case with the propeller, the combustion engine or the
bicycle wheel. A myriad of innovative products will most certainly take shape as a result of
the widespread use of latest fast prototyping technologies together with the emergence of
new composite materials, carbon fiber and nanotubes, among others. New enabling tech-
nologies such as ultrafast digital processors, new generation wireless networks, drones and
robots –to name just a few- make us safely claim that the call for innovation will not decay in
any foreseeable future. Innovation will not be an option for any company that wants to stay
competitive in an open economy.
Having said that, the need to innovate is only partially explained by the proliferation of new
scientific knowledge. Unresolved social needs and environmental threats demanded with
unprecedented intensity thanks to the propagation of social media are at the center of the
forces that place innovation as a primary concern of companies in general and of higher-
education organizations in particular.

Innovation as a value driven phenomenon

Understanding the consequences for design and for design education of this fast changing
environment requires sharing a common definition of innovation in the first place. I consider
some of the most frequently quoted definitions of innovation somewhat cumbersome and
limited. As an example, the third edition of the Oslo Manual defines innovation as: “The
implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new
marketing method, or a new organisational method in business practices, workplace organisa-
tion or external relations.” Paraphrasing the film Amadeus, I believe there are just “too many
notes” in this composition and with that, some of the essence of what innovation is all about
is actually missed 2.
I prefer to propose this deliberately simple definition:
“Innovation is the act of designing or maintaining valid the value proposition
of an organization.”

The key concept here is “value”. To put value at the heart of the definition of innovation has a
fundamental consequence: it renders people at the center of this issue; it considers innovation
as a person-centered phenomenon, thus inviting us to concentrate attention on perceptions by
people, as opposed to on objects, goods, services, processes or simply on creativity. This in its
turn naturally drives us to relate innovation with culture and history. Good or bad innovation,
radical or gradual, are seen as distinctions that “inhabit” in people’s life history and biology.
Innovation appears as an act that emerges in someone’s consciousness, a dynamic two-way
phenomenon between a world of objects and services and the people for whom those entities
are intended. This defies the common belief that words such as “quality”, “excellence”, “creative”
and others describe objective realities, and replaces it by a people’s centered approach that
promotes a paradigm that has value judgment at the heart of these distinctions.

Innovation is rarely discussed in this way, but a noteworthy exception is found in a strategic
orientation document published by Chile’s National Council on Innovation for Competitive-
ness. 3 In the chapter entitled The Nature of Innovation, the report states: “We tend to equate
innovation with an ingenious use of science and technology, as if the formula for innovation were
Innovation = Science+Technology+Creativity. This equation, however, soon proves to be insuf-
ficient. First of all, because we know that many innovations emerged as practices before science
could explain them (beer production and the steam engine, to give just two examples), and not all
scientific research leads directly to innovations. Secondly, because we see that it is impossible to limit
creativity to a single method or procedure; even more, when we are tempted to place it at the center
of the innovation phenomenon, we begin to lose sight of something. When we think of innovations
as products, we naturally assume that there is an exact moment for them that they must appear
“at the right time” so that the “window of opportunity” does not vanish. However, there is an even
more important time: historical time, the historical moment and space in which innovations occur.
Because new things may only emerge from an already existing world, and only when we have the
ability to produce them and the social contexts of demand are appropriate."
Understanding innovation in this way has consequences: In an era characterized by radical
change and an explosion of new scientific knowledge, the source of innovation is not confined
to science and technology. Although it is obvious that we live in an era profoundly shaped
by the new materials, processes and opportunities that emerge from the scientist’s lab or
the engineer’s drawing board, novel forms of perceived value also result from new business
models and from new shapes and profiles conceived by the creative mind of designers. Some
of the most innovative firms of our time, Apple, Porsche, Samsung, provide us with evidence
that innovation can reach the highest standards when technology, economics and design are
combined in an integrated innovation act.

Business rediscovers Design

As a result of the latest economic crisis, the world of business started looking for clues and
explanations as to what went wrong and how to recover fast and effectively from this unfor-
tunate scenario. In this context, innovation emerged as a promising source of new business
paradigms, as a relevant concept that serve to separate winners from losers. Innovation advo-
cates became keynote speakers in most business conferences and virtually all-leading business

schools redesigned their curricula so as to incorporate innovation as a mandatory discipline

for new generations of business leaders. Moreover, when management science and business
scholars decided to investigate innovation processes more thoroughly, they found an entirely
new value and potential to an old but hardly adverted discipline: Design.
“Great companies are built with a design ethos at the core,” claimed Megan Quinn, a leading Sili-
con Valley investor. “The Power of Design” was the heading of Business Week’s front page in its
May 2004 edition. At the time one of the most influential business publications, the magazine
portrayed IDEO and founder David Kelly and CEO Tim Brown as heroes. In fact, IDEO was not
simply recognized as a successful design company with clients as diverse as Hewlett-Packard,
NASA, Samsung and the BBC, but it managed to challenge the role of traditional corporate
consulting firms such as McKinsey and BCG. A new, more comprehensive contribution by
design to making companies more innovative and more successful had emerged. As the CEO
of a health corporation expressed it in the same article: "With IDEO, we partner up and work
side-by-side. We are internalizing their methodology to build our own culture of innovation."
“Design-based innovation” became a frequently quoted term that made inroads into the
core-business of management schools. Roger Martin, former Dean of the Rotman School
of Management became a well known promoter of Design Thinking, and books such as Tom
Peters’s “Design Rules”, “Design-Inspired Innovation” by James Utterback’, “Change by Design”
by Tim Brown and Roger Martin’s own “The Design of Business” became editorial successes
and mandatory reading material in most MBA programs. Beyond academy, these were the
shining years of Apple and of Steve Jobs as the ultimate symbols of the “innovation-rules”
economy. The business community was enchanted not only by the discovery of a fresh new
source for making companies more competitive, but was also positively surprised by the fact
that, as opposed to science and technology-based innovation, design-based innovation does
not require large capital expenditure.
Interestingly enough, design scholars had been trying to vindicate the relevance and the
role of design in society for some decades before the business community discovered its
full potential. England was the homeland of the Design Methods Movement, an effort mas-
terminded by Christopher Jones and Bruce Archer, both of them engineers interested in
design. Jones wrote his highly influential “Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures” in
1962, and Bruce Archer was the founder of the Department of Design Research at the Royal
College of Art and of the Design Reserch Society in 1976. 4 In the meanwhile in the US, Her-
bert Simon (“The Sciences of the Artificial”), Horst Rittel and Christopher Alexander (“Notes
on the Synthesis of Form”) where pioneers in an attempt to disclose a method that would
enable designers to understand and master how design originated. These attempts proved
to be rather rigid and too simplistic to successfully deal with the high complexity of design
processes, yet they set the grounds for an attempt by the design community to abandon the
idea that design was basically an artistic, irrational activity and laid the foundations for an
approach to problem solving much more aligned with the type of language and sensitivity
with which business practice could relate.
The Design discipline, traditionally reduced to graphics and aesthetics, suddenly became
acknowledged as a more fundamental kind of human concern; design thinking transcended
the realm of professional designers. We all have a brain with a right side. We are all designers
to a certain extent. Moreover, some design scholars proposed design process models aimed
at putting design thinking into action in companies of any kind and size.

Roger Martin 5 distinguishes two forms of business thinking: Analytical thinking fundamentally
driven by a quantitative, rational process, and Intuitive thinking, that focuses more on synthetic
processes and creativity. Analytical thinking has been the prevailing way for approaching
problem solving in organizations, but Martin argues that it is precisely that purely analytical
approach that explains the rather poor innovation track record of most companies. His idea
is that design thinking is precisely the answer to balance as well as to integrate analytical and
intuitive thinking.
I had the opportunity to make a profound curricular reform at the Faculty of Engineering at
Adolfo Ibáñez University (2003) and later on at the Business School of the same university
in 2007. The main purpose of that reform was to set in motion a cultural transformation in
both schools that would prepare the grounds to develop pro-innovation and pro-entrepre-
neurship competences in both engineering and business students. 6 That reform had among
its main drivers, the need to reach a new balance in the education of the new generations
of business leaders. That balance incorporated in an explicit way, the need to integrate the
disciplines and processes that neuroscientists associate with the right hand side and the
left part of our brains.

That, together with the declaration that we would recognize and deal with three sources of
innovation: technology, business models and design, led us to adopt and to adapt contents
and methodologies borrowed from the design studios tradition. The adoption of a “learning by
doing” approach, so familiar to Architecture and Design students alike, had a profound impact
upon the students’ attitude and motivation towards innovation and entrepreneurship. After
three years of implementing the new academic curriculum, UAI’s School of Business became
ranked number one in Latin America. 7 It was clear to us that business schools graduates had
a lot to learn from design thinking and from design practice. It did not take long to identify
that there was an other side of the same token: Are there equally fundamental adaptations
that can and may be should be done in schools of design and architecture that would result
in professional architects and designers more apt to play a meaningful role in an innovation 65

driven economy? The answer to that question resulted in the conception and elaboration of a
project for a brand new design school with a radically different academic plan at Adolfo Ibáñez.

How should design education adapt to the needs of the innovation economy?

The role of design (and therefore of design schools) in the landscape of the innovation-driven
economy has never been more auspicious. Management schools have introduced courses on
creativity skills, design, and product development techniques and even conservative MBA
programs are increasingly open to relate design thinking not just to marketing but also to all
areas of management, competitive strategy included. Today MBA students are encouraged to
value and to adopt the sort of “fail-fast, fail-cheap” approach to problem solving, so naturally
employed at design schools, where making serial mock-ups is not just a way of visualizing solu-
tions but a natural way to gain an understanding of the nature of the problem we are trying
to solve. Roger Martin has concedes design maximum value when he says: “business people
don't need to understand designers better, they need to become designers.” 8 Maybe Martin’s
words should not be taken literarily, in the sense that business people will not adopt the role
played by professional designers, but instead will develop the awareness and an interest to
incorporate designers in a multidisciplinary and multidimensional approach to dealing with
increasingly complex decision making processes.
However, it would be a mistake for design schools to be condescending in this favorable sce-
nario and to think that, because of the wide acceptance and the new reloaded role that design
is plying in society, the design based professions should remain unaltered, exempted from
the need to adapt to the challenges of a fast-changing society. Despite the natural connec-
tion between art and design, there is no question that the practice of both architecture and
design has profound links with the evolution of technology and with the changing paradigms
emerging from social and environmental sciences. Faculties of architecture and design ought
to revise both the contents as well as the methods of their syllabus offering to comply with at
least the following challenges:

Educating for complexity. Social responsibility, environmental soundness and ultimately sus-
tainability have become vital and mandatory considerations for products, services, companies
even political campaigns. Designing in and for this unprecedented scenario implies being
prepared to deal with complexity not just out of mere intuition but rather combining instinct
and perception with concepts emerging from a systems thinking. To prepare designers and
architects to deal with design thinking and system thinking in an integrated way can only result
in an enhancement of the role they will play in multidisciplinary teams.
Urban design is a good source to illustrate this claim. In our time, urban development is not
a task reduced to provide cities with more and better hard infrastructure, but it is an increas-
ingly more complex task that requires making available quality of knowledge communication
and social infrastructure. The concept of the “smart city” has been introduced as a strate-
gic distinction to encompass new urban development paradigms in a common framework
and to highlight the rising importance of digital technologies and the so-called social and
environmental capital in profiling the quality of life of cities. Design centered profession-
66 als will need to be able to make distinctions and dominate at least the basic vocabulary of

the disciplines that concur towards the sort of multidisciplinary teams that will collectively
design smart cities.
Digital technologies. This implies an understanding and a degree of familiarity with advanced
electronics, pervasive microchips, high-level programming environments and large data base
management to name a few.
New materials, new fabrication techniques. New materials with extraordinary physical proper-
ties will emerge from the development of nanotechnology. 3-D printers, laser cutters, robotic
arms and other fabrication technologies promise to radically change the landscape of fabrica-
tion and distribution.
Ecological literacy. The relationship between man-made objects and the natural environ-
ment will become a key consideration to distinguish good from bad design. Preservation and
adaptive reusage, energy efficiency, eco-climate and waste prevention and treatment are just
some of the subject matters that designers need to be concerned with.
New rigor. Last but not least, apart from incorporating new disciplines in design curricula,
dealing with more scientific-based matters requires the development of a new sense of rigor
and discipline of thought, none of which is part of the designer’s tradition. Without losing the
richness of the studio tradition, design schools need to define how are they going to respond
to develop the attitudes and competences that design students can and should exhibit to cap-
ture the unprecedented opportunities and challenges that design education should address.

Orchestrating innovation and design in Chile

I would like to end this essay with a reference to an initiative that is taking place at the Catholic
University in Chile, where the Center on Innovation “Anacleto Angelini” has just been inaugu-
rated. 9 With a population of only 17 million, Chile is a small country in Latin America that many
have praised due to its modern open economy. With GDP per capita (based on purchasing
power parity) of around US$ 21.000, the country is striving to reach the US$ 25K GDP per capita
level, a barrier that we will hardly attain unless the economy evolves from being fundamentally
commodities driven towards strengthening the local capacity to export the higher value-added
products and services that are associated to innovation and high impact entrepreneurship.
The Innovation Center at Catholic University was conceived as a place to inspire, connect and
orchestrate innovation. This is a multidisciplinary location in which all university faculties are
invited to participate under an innovation paradigm that recognizes technology, business
models and design as the main sources of innovation. In its 9.000 m2, 10 stories high building,
the Center will house a mix of academic, innovation and entrepreneurial projects.
In this context we are committed to finding a way to integrate students and staff from the
Faculty of Architecture and Design to the multidisciplinary projects that will be housed at the
Center. We have already identified several areas and projects in which designers have been
being invited to play a central role, ranging from running a fast prototyping facility based on
MIT’s FabLab concept, to taking part in interdisciplinary innovation projects in subject matters
as diverse as education, high-rise timber structures, aging and agroindustry.
Behind these efforts there is an underlying question: Can designers and architects take over
and play a predominant role in the innovation economy? At the beginning of this paper

we argued that innovation is not merely a technical endeavor but rather a person’s centered
phenomenon that is well served by professionals who are trained observers, with an ability to
act upon the problems or the misfits they observe in people’s conducts and desires. Design-
ers have been trained to discover latent needs using research tools and to apply their creative
talent to bring about design-based innovations. They should have the conviction as well as
the creativity to lead multidisciplinary teams that gather around innovation challenges. We
will stay vigilant for an answer to this question, but it is for the design community to respond
to this captivating challenge.

1 Kaufman Stuart: “Emerging Technologies Conference”, Boston, MIT, 2003
2 Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. OECD Publishing, Third
Edition, 2005
3 “Surfing Towards the Future: Chile on the 2025 Horizon”. CNIC, National Council on Innovation for
Competitiveness, Santiago, 2013. Page 27
4 Bruce Archer can be acknowledged as the founder of design research as a discipline. I am honored
to have had him as tutor of my thesis, “An Enquiry into the Relationship Between Design Competence
and Socio-Economic Development,” with which I graduated as the first Ph.D. ever of the Royal College
of Art in 1977
5 Roger Martin, “The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage”,
6 Alfonso Gómez, “Nuevos Paradigmas para Formar Líderes de Negocios”, Harvard Business Review,
7 America Economía Ranking of Latin American Business Schools, 2010
8 Martin, Roger (2007) Introductory text for the Rotman School website,
9 Centro de Innovación UC Anacleto Angelini at

Session 1
Managing change:
Profiling Change
in a Globalised World
Are changes in architectural education common in different geographical
areas of the globe?
Is the request for change focused on similar issues and priorities?
What is the impact of the context on architectural education?
Does the globalization of architectural education experienced have any
respect for local identities, requests, claims, needs and traditions?
Are there different ways of managing change in different areas of the
contemporary globalized architectural education?
The aim of the session is to map the differences in the management of
change in the geographical areas represented in the Meeting and in the
strategies that the Associations of Schools of Architecture implement
to support their members in their effort to deal with change. Over five
Associations of Schools of Architecture across the globe have been invited
to offer their insights.
Session 1 Managing change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

Ted Landsmark, Boston, USA

Introductory panel:
Karl Otto Ellefsen, Oslo, Norway
Norman Millar, Woodbury, USA
Ivan Cartes, Bio-Bio, Chile
Carlos Vallanteres-Cerezo, Guatemala City, Guatemala
Tore Brandstveit Haugen, Trondheim, Norway

Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

Ted Landsmark (chair)

President of National Architectural Accreditation Board (NAAB) Boston Architectural
College, Boston, USA

My thanks to everyone who has attended and to those of you who remain here at this moment,
my special thanks to you.

I will make three quick comments. The first will be to repeat what I said in that first session,
which picks up on what Constantin just said. The pace of change will never be this slow again.
To repeat: it will never be this slow again. If we are lucky, the current pace of change will begin
to become more moderate as our absorption on new technologies will become easier, and
we reach a plateau in our assimilation and reflection upon new knowledge, but because of
the additional networking that is now possible with collaborators around the world, coupled
with the additional data that we all have from cloud- based technology and our increased
access to the new media platforms, it can fairly be said that we are now at the slowest point
in what the pace of change will be. We need to figure out how to adapt to the exposure to,
absorption of, and reflection upon new data much more rapidly than we have been doing up
to now. We are still too often followers of our students and clients in utilizing new data and
data management resources now available to designers, educators, and planners, and we need
to lead changes in our profession and in what and how we teach, rather than merely being
dazed followers of these changes.
I came away from that first session and from the overall conference thinking two things about
that. The first is that we as architects and educators, we are very good at describing what we
are doing or what we have done. In that first session, we spent a lot of our time talking about
what each of the associations we are associated with was doing at this moment, but we never
really got to how we are doing the things that we are doing. Frankly, I find that to be the case
in a great many design conferences that I attend. Someone starts to speak, they show their
work, it is wonderful work, and at the end of the presentation, we still do not really know how
they got there. All we observe and come to know is that the work is wonderful.
I think that in our panel, we suffered from the same presentation malaise, that is to say, each
of us talked about what our particular association does, but we did not really get to the ques-
tion of how we are supporting individual schools in terms of managing changes in pedagogy,
accreditation, and our design professions.
Therefore my first major observation is that all of us need to move more quickly to a discussion
of how we are doing what we are doing rather than simply focusing on what we are doing.
The “how” tends to come in these conferences when we leave this space and go to lunch or
supper. It is then that people really get engaged with talking about the processes that lead to
the results that we show. How we achieve particular management outcomes for our programs
or learning outcomes for our students, only becomes apparent after our presentations and
discussions, rather than in them. I would hope that we would all learn, starting with myself, to
be better at getting quickly to an analysis of how we are actively managing change rather than
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

simply saying descriptively that change is taking place around us, and that we are somewhat
dismayed by its pace.
The second thing I would say, and I think it goes to that same question or issue, is around the
subtext of this conference, which is to say, we need to collaborate with each other better than
we do at this moment. Collaboration is intrinsically a political process, and as designers most
of us are somewhat loath to say that the work we do is intrinsically political. But the bottom
line, for all of us, is that there are forces which are affecting all of our schools: declining enroll-
ments, new technologies, the responsibility to find new ways of meeting curriculum change,
or findings new ways of doing fund raising; all of that is different for us than it was even five
years ago. Yet many of us continue to act as though we can address and solve those problems
independently, by ourselves, but we just cannot do that anymore.
Collaborative activity is essential; a lot of the work that Constantin and Maria have done over
the past few years has really been about trying to facilitate how we collaborate with each other
better. That goes firstly to how the European schools work with each other and take advantage
of the resources that each of the schools has without having to duplicate those resources, and
then it goes to how we go about collaborating across traditional boundaries, whether those
boundaries are national boundaries, or age boundaries, or technology access boundaries, or
a range of other boundaries. The reality is, as we saw last year, that our students are already
transcending those artificial boundaries better than we are in almost every instance. Whatever
the parallel strategies that we use in each of our schools or in each of our countries or in each
of our programmes to develop and nurture our own programmes, we all know that if we had
all collaborated on certain issues three or four years ago that were raised at this conference,
then some of the larger regulatory bodies could not have gotten away with trying to impose
new standards on the European schools in the way that they have.

I would like to conclude by saying that part of the reason that the American schools which were
here have already expressed to me satisfaction with what the National Architectural Accredit-
ing Board has done in terms of changing accreditation standards for the 120-odd American
schools, is that as accreditors we have sought to be open and collaborative in developing our
new policies. Part of the reason that they are satisfied with our transparent process is that
they have gotten virtually everything they wanted. The reason that they have gotten that is
that we as regulators recognised that we had to be open and transparent and had to share
information, had to ask people to submit white papers to us, had to do the research that goes
on in the schools but have the schools do that research, and then we had to be quiet and listen
to what the schools felt needed to happen. As a consequence, the schools ended up getting
some things they were not even expecting to get, like longer terms of accreditation and more
openness in terms of the process to recognise alternative career paths.
What we had put out there in draft form as new accreditation standards is far from perfect,
but it reflects what the schools told us they needed to have in order to move forward in this
rapidly changing world of design education. It seems to me that you as a group of educators,
and the group that was here for that opening session, are the ones who to a large extent can
set the agenda for what should really be going on in our design schools, but it means that we
have to leave this space with a sense that we can disagree about many things, which is per-
72 fectly acceptable, but that there really is common ground that exists across our schools, and
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

we need to share that information about design education, and then we need to collaborate
in political ways in order to move an agenda forward that is beneficial to our programmes
and to our students.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to be here and for the fantastic work that has been
done here. There is much work still to be done in advancing architecture and in architectural
education in this rapidly changing 21st Century of new data access and new forms of learning
and community building!

Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World


President of the European Association for Architectural Education (EAAE), Rector of
Oslo School of Architecture, Norway

It is nice to see everyone here again in Chania. I will start out by congratulating ENHSA and
specifically Maria and Constantin for being able to sustain this conference this year also in what
are rather difficult times for organisations. This is the first time I will have addressed you as the
president of the EAAE, so please excuse me for firstly saying a few words about the current
situation in this organization as I consider it necessary to do, and then I will hopefully also be
able to say a few words about the current topic.
Firstly, let me say something about EAAE. The organisation is not a co-organiser of this event
this year and an EAAE General Assembly is not a part of the programme. However, the new
council elected in Leuven will stage its third Council Meeting, right behind here, starting at
2.30pm today. This council has set out to accomplish two tasks.
The first task for the new Council is to try and reconcile the organisation. In other words, its aim
is to clarify and put straight all the different kinds of discussions about management, about
accounts and about economy. I will hurry to say that it seems that we will be able to achieve
this and to present a report to you at the next General Assembly, possibly in the spring of 2014,
in order to clarify the detail. This task may be easier than I thought it would be when starting
out with the new council. There is, however, another task which is much more demanding. Our
other task is, of course, to modernise the EAAE and turn it into a necessary tool for dialogues
and discussions about teaching and research amongst ourselves, with the professions, in the
public arena and also in relation to different kinds of national governments and to the EU. In
order to be able to accomplish this, it is necessary to launch a strategic process and to develop
key missions for the organisation. This requires hard work; it also needs passion. This means
that you are all needed in the process.
At this point in time, I would ask you to start this discussion already here in Chania. Forget about
the split in our organisation, forget about the discussions regarding accounts and manage-
ment, please do not involve yourselves in the discussions about EAAE-ENHSA peculiarities!
The new Council will set things straight. What needs to be discussed is the future of EAAE and
the question of what sort of organisation will be needed in the years to come. At this point
in time, especially in the development process, you have to try to convince your friends – or
possibly those who might be your half-friends in the current situation – to come down off
the fence and take part in the strategic discussion. This is extremely difficult. I am examining
different kinds of initiatives happening around Europe. People are working, they are active;
they are devoted to the question of teaching and research and also devoted to the question of
the future of architecture. At the moment, however, the situation has the potential to end up
in different organisations for European Schools of Architecture. There might be two or three
competing organisations all trying to do the same thing! This in a way mirrors the European
situation, and it constitutes a danger that a new council has to confront in a very rational and
amicable manner.
I would like to continue with something completely different and more directly related to
74 today’s topic. I would like to present three short observations. We all look upon Venice as a
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

museum. What I have learnt in recent years is that more than half of the world looks upon
Europe in the same way that we look upon Venice, that is, as a museum. When I meet Chinese
tourists in Oslo, they see Oslo in the same way that they regard Venice. This may be a strange
thing, but it needs thoughtful consideration.

The second observation is that in Europe we have somehow, in the last two decades, followed
a very strange conception of or way of thinking about the relation between the hand and the
brain. In a way, we have considered the Europeans to be the future brains and that Europe
could export the work done by our hands to the other parts of the world, in particular to Asia,
but even to Africa: they could be the hands, while we could sit here thinking. It is an incredible
thought, but it has been manifest in policies, even in those of the European Union, to reduce
all kinds of production in Europe, to say that we are going to be inventive while our production
should happen elsewhere. I feel one should be an economist to be able to anticipate these
kinds of thoughts, but this general idea has actually been the basis of European policies. It is
obviously all wrong, for the fact is that the brain follows the hand, the brain learns from the
hand and innovation follows production.

The third observation is the following. The building sector in parts of Europe has fallen apart.
This is very dramatic; a few people, or even many people in this room know quite a lot about it.
It is a truly dramatic situation. The very interesting thing that I have noticed about this situation
is that it has created some kind of extreme urge for innovation, also within architecture. I am
positioned up in a country where we swim in oil and breathe gas; it is very different from most
of Europe. What I have seen, however, is that over the past two or three years, young people
in Norway, in Denmark and Sweden have started to invite different kinds of young practices
coming from Greece, from Portugal and from Spain. And these are inventive practices. Young
people with young methods of practice are coming up from these countries and redefine
how they work with architecture in very interesting ways. In this, there is some kind of hope.

Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

President of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), Dean of
Woodbury University School of Architecture, USA

I would like to thank Constantin and Maria for their hospitality and for the invitation to come
to this ENHSA Heads’ meeting. I am going to speak mainly in my capacity as the president of
the ACSA, which is the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, and one of the five
collaterals that guide the discipline of architecture in North America. I am going to speak briefly
about four ways that ACSA manages change.
I would say the primary one is by a very rigorous schedule of conferences that are held every
year. A very large part of our budget goes towards producing these conferences. Every confer-
ence has two co-chairs. They are primarily what would be called peer-reviewed conferences,
with papers that reflect what our faculties are doing. The largest of these conferences is the
Annual Meeting, which is usually held in the springtime; there is always an International Con-
ference every other year – a year ago it was in Barcelona, the coming one will be in Seoul,
Korea. There is a fall conference, which is focused on very specific emergent issues. Last year,
for example, the conference was entitled ‘Offsite’; it focused on pre-produced building com-
ponents offsite and brought together onsite. This year the conference is a joint one between
an Australian university and a university in Florida; the focus is sub-tropical cities.
Every year, the Administrators’ Conference is held, which I assume is very similar to this confer-
ence, where the programme heads come together, with administrators talking to administra-
tors. What you see here are the blurbs, which show how these conferences are very much
focused on change. Last year’s conference Annual Meeting was in San Francisco; it was entitled:
‘New Constellations and New Ecologies’. The global rate, scale and scope of the environmental,
cultural, technological and demographic change and its impact on the built and natural world
seemingly far exceed our capacity for adaptation and retooling. The question of the confer-
ence was: ‘How can academic institutions take on this challenge?’ The conference coming up
in Miami in April is entitled, ‘Globalising Architecture: Flows and Disruptions’; the focus will be
on global forces of flows and disruptions such as sea level change, political unrest, economic
downturn and their impact on architectural education or even on the profile of the students
who manage to get admitted to the architecture programmes.

The International Conference that was held in Barcelona in 2012 was entitled, ‘Change, Archi-
tecture, Education and Practices’. It was based on a Greek belief that the only thing that is
constant is change itself. Planning is currently underway for a June conference in Seoul, Korea,
to look at what we call, ‘Open Cities: the New Post-Industrial World Order’. The basis of the
conference is that a fascinating culturally-based urbanism has emerged in Asia and elsewhere,
fuelled by aggressive investment in education, technology and innovation. It is hoped that the
concentration of these new age tools will advance the most culturally sophisticated lifestyles
possible and in so doing, reverse the trend of Westernisation in favour of a more globalised
world view. The premise is that a premier service industry city typology is emerging: the open
city. Perhaps the most consistent of our conferences that address change every year is focused
76 on the Administrators’ Conference.
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

Probably the reason that I am sitting here is that in 2011, I hosted in Hollywood the ACSA
Administrators’ Conference. It was entitled, ‘Old School, New School’ and I worked with Mar-
garet Crawford from the University of California, Berkeley. What we tried to do was set up a
vigorous debate: there was a conscious selection of individuals who might maintain either old
school views or new school views, whom we put together on panels and tried to get to argue.
The themes covered everything from new technologies to the financial challenges that are
facing our schools, to the differences between the less financially stable public schools to the
more financially stable private schools. New technologies were examined, as were even blue-
sky ideas about architectural education. Coming up in Providence, Rhode Island, co-chaired
by Pradeep Sharma from London, who is the new Dean at Rhode Island School of Design and
Bill Morrish, from Parsons, is a conference called ‘All over the Place’. This will focus on the idea
that, at this time, more than 50% of the architecture graduates of North American schools are
not practising in a traditional way. This may also be the case here; thanks to NAAB, we focus
on producing education that produces graduate students who can become licensed.
I am happy to see that for the first time, alternative practice is one of the issues that NAAB has
put into the new conditions. For the first time, there is the recognition that architecture schools
are not only training students to practise in what we might call the traditional practice, but they
are also training students who need to have entrepreneurial values so that they can take their
design skills and work on the fringes of what might be called traditional architectural practice.
The second thing besides conferences is that there is an extensive awards programme every
year as well as competitions. The awards programmes are intended to recognise innovative
student and faculty design work and innovative work in the classroom. These awards also
become something that is useful because it is a peer-reviewed process; it is very much part
of the tenure process in the United States and Canada.
The other thing is what Ted Landsmark talked about earlier, which is the idea of focusing on
emergent practices and what this means for accreditation. As practice adjusts, so too must the
schools and their curricula. Fortunately, we have a five-year cycle. I know that the directives
here in Europe, the eleven directives, are starting to become a little mature; I know there are
others which vary from nation to nation, but in the United States one of the benefits of our
accreditation system is that we are able to come together every five years and rethink things.
Thus we have, as Ted described, what is called the ARC preparation every five years, where
the collaterals AIA, representing the professionals and NCARB the licensing, AIA the students,
ACSA do their white papers for us, ACSA interviews the schools recently visited to assess what
works and what does not and what things have changed and the board writes the white
paper. NAAB reviews the conditions for the accreditation and updates them. My final theme
concerns the changing economies.

This year, ACSA has adopted a new stance because we need an aggressive communications
outreach programme to influence change. The main idea is that we need to push back against
the bad press on the discipline of architecture that has been emerging. Recently, in the last
year, The Washington Post published a study that showed that architecture has the highest
unemployment in the United States of any discipline. 13.9% may not be as bad as 25% but it is
fairly serious in the US. The Wall Street Journal produced an article, which said that architecture
was probably one of the most unfavourable areas to pursue in higher education. What we 77
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

are doing is that we are working with the board of directors amongst whom there are repre-
sentatives from across Canada and the United States. Each one of them is collecting stories,
which will then be collated; we will then work with a public relations firm in order to start to
promote not only architectural education but also the values of architects and of architecture
in North America.

Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

President of the Latin American Union of Schools and Faculties of Architecture
(UDEFAL), Professor in the School of Architecture, University of Conception, Chile

Teaching and Learning Architecture in the Southern Countries

of the World
The Latin American panorama of architectural education

In the validation process for Latin American Schools of Architecture, ARCUSUR board, (Mer-
cosur Agreement), it was found that many educational centers are graduating their students
with a general profile and no specialization. In several countries this profile is compulsory by
law, disregarding multiple problems that yield attention in different social and environmental
contexts. By definition, a graduated is an architect with general knowledge “to design” for a
particular context, without paying attention to the real emergencies that emphasize reality in
the Latin American territory. At the same time, the size and amount of population of our cities
have left room for territorial, urban, architectural, technological and environmental studies
that no longer require an architect with without specialization. Besides, the curricula include
European history of architecture and do not consider what happened and is happening in
South America, loosing opportunities for comprehending better and thoroughly our origins
that can help to understand the current scenario.

Latin America: its origins

Along with the history of the world the American continent has its own history with several
remarkable moments and a non-depreciable linkage with the environment through the cul-
tures that have populated its territory. The Mayas, Aztecans, and Incas, just to name some of
the cultures of the American continent, were so aware of the settlements impact, environ-
ment, astrology, etc., and above all, totally concerned with the basic relationship between
culture and earth. The mother earth represented everything and they very much depended
on seasons, cultivation and harvesting. Therefore they celebrated the winter solstice when
they had to take the most important decisions for the rest of the year, and prayed for crops
and multiplication of species.
The environment, the seasons and the relationship between mankind and the earth were the
basic principles for quality of life and for living in human and urban settlements. They knew
their limits and very much respected their surroundings and related ecologies that bonded
them to the earth. Pride of place and identity were common feelings. Today we have lost
many of the basic principles that inspired those urban settlements centuries ago, and the
cities have surpassed the limits of their ecological limits. Mexico City (17 millions) and Sao
Paulo (15 millions) are both far bigger than London with 5 millions of people and the major
European capital. This city growth has also given way to new approaches and solutions that
can be implemented in some other areas, and the solutions are starting to come from the
inside of the American continent (Cartes, 2012). 79
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

Fig. 1 Fig. 2
Temple of the Sun in Macchu Picchu, the integra- Water fountains with recreational purposes in
tion between site and architecture. urban spaces. “Earth and water” the main concerns
in Inca´s urban centers.

Fig. 3
Articulated and rapid transit vehicles in Curitiba
and bus feeders to diminish time at the stop bus.

Fig. 4 & 5
Urban Acupuncture: Library in Medellin, Colombia. One of the triggering schemes that balanced quality
80 of life in a poor neighborhood without intervening the whole area.
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

As an example, the sustainable strategies and public transport system implemented in Curit-
iba are well used and implemented in other places and the rapid transit vehicles (RTV), or
bi-articulated buses, have been used worldwide. The Colombian urban acupuncture, with
triggering projects in derelict neighborhoods has shown us some of the many solutions that
could be adapted and applied in other countries. So, indeed we have a new urban laboratory
in America and it is the time for solutions to be exported. However, this couldn’t have been
possible without the strong cultural foundation of the past and the consequent urban growth
that made think of experimental and rapid solutions to diminish bigger impacts and improve
people’s quality of life.

Current problems and crisis

According to the International Bank for Development (BID), the Latin American diagnosis has
to be considered and studied particularly for urban quality of life:
• In water sanitation and sewage waste we have less than 15% being treated with an incred-
ible impact on health, associated ecologies and agriculture.
• Solid waste is one of the major problems and only 50% has appropriate final disposal and
less than 2,2 % is being recycled.
• Air quality, is worsening and 30 capitals went up to 20 micrograms/m3 and are declared
polluted areas with no chance to improve, unless the wind or rain washes out the sus-
pended particles in the air.
• More importantly, social inequity is very common and the difference between the rich
and the poor is notorious and 1 out of 3 people live in shantytowns and 1 out of 4 live in
poor areas (BID, 2012).

These problems may awake the architectural schools that could scan the reality on their area to
be aware of the si problems they have to deal with. A graduated architect that merely designs
must look at the current crisis ant put the design production into the right direction, addressing
several issues that yield attention right away. In many ways, these are the potential arenas of
discussion and where it is possible to find work, providing assistance to the population that
needs more urgent attention (Mabardi, 2012).

The Schools of Architecture and present curricula

In the Tuning II scheme as well as in the international validation process for South America, it
was found that most of the architectural Schools are graduating an architect with a general
profile, in some cases by law, particularly Brazil, Colombia and Chile (293 Schools/200 millions
of inhabitants in Brazil; 34 Schools/47mll in Colombia, and 45 Schools/17mll in Chile).
In the validation processes a strong point was made on the way the students are working
within certain needs and contexts, sometimes by themselves without the school’s support
and making clear the need of better understanding technologies and local materials. This
calls attention on the way the school is related to the community on its own location and
how it faces the reality that the students are starting to bring in. In some schools the students
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

Fig. 6 Fig. 7
Water sanitation & treatment. Shanti towns with no solution.

Fig. 8
Poor urban areas and favelas, the most common
urban image in many Latin American cities.

Fig. 9
Low cost housing “Quinta Monroy”, Iquique,
Aravena, Cortese, Montero and Cerda, Chile 2004.
An outcome of the “Elemental Scheme” concerning
82 new approaches for housing policies.
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

are taken the lead and invite lecturers to participate in a kind of community schemes in very
straight forward initiatives (Ortiz & Alexander, 2005).
During the validation process and in the interview with the students most of them claimed
to be trained on particular technical subjects experienced at early stage of their career when
they have little experience out of the school.
The graduates acknowledged the quality of teaching of their school but also the lack of focus in
particular issues related to the place where they have to work or more training in useful matters.
One good example in practice is “The Elemental Scheme” developed by academics at the
School of Architecture, Catholic University of Chile, with a new focus and approach for low
cost housing in collaboration with the private sector. They set up a new equation of more built
square meters for a better quality of life and succeeded with the support of professionals and
students (Plataforma de Arquitectura, 2012).

Today the scheme has settled a chair and is well known nationally and internationally because
of the construction of a new paradigm in low cost housing. However, nothing could have hap-
pened without the right analysis and observation of how the low cost housing was being done
and failing in practice, there was a strong link among scheme, reality, practice and inhabitant.
This equation of knowhow/inhabitant must be stressed for a better understanding of our
reality, taking advantage that the schools are changing from a formative to a competence
curriculum (Bologna agreement), because the lecture room is no longer on campus and some-
thing else could be explored on the case study basis (Ben, 2006).
One logic consequence could be to transfer the specialization into master or PhD programs
after graduation, making the educational system a continuum, but also it needs immediate
reaction and subject’s re-enforcement in the particular problems that the graduates will face
when they start working.
The social protest and riots are demonstrating, at the Latin-American level, the need of change
in the quality of education but also in what education does for social comfort and content-
ment. Along with this, there are countries like Argentina where they openly declared that
the architectural practice is of social interest, so this situation must reorient the educational
system, to pay attention to social current crisis or the changes experienced by our cities due
to global weather changes, natural disasters, and lack of economic resources.

In the Latin American context, the schools of architecture with an international validation
will agree the system of Free Transfer Credit, where any subject can be approved in a host
School and transferred to the school from where the student comes for his interchange.
It will naturally appear that the students will move to Schools with subjects that they
do not have in their schools of origin and this radically appeal to the contexts and what
the host schools have scanned on site, for instance: Bamboo construction in Ecuador and
Colombia, Adobe construction in Peru, timber design in Chile. This situation defines the
open chances and opportunities to incorporate specialization and what matter most for
architectural education.
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World


The Latin-American panorama is always full of constraints, and many times worsened by urgen-
cies and radical demands. Population everywhere is more vulnerable and cities are not resil-
ient enough to buffer changes and people’s needs. In the last Conference of Latin American
Schools of Architecture, with the theme “Crisis and perspective”, in Asuncion, Paraguay, it was
concluded that the Schools must face this reality more adequately. In the same sense the most
frequent key words in the keynote lectures and papers where: local resources, appropriate
technologies, transdisciplinarity, identity, informal opportunities, small scale schemes, and
context (CLEFA, 2014).
May be we won’t see the final changes in architectural educations, but we are very much
engaged in a changing process. This particular situation has permitted us to think of a differ-
ent future with more opportunities in different scenarios. There will be chances for innovative
solutions that will come out from facing the reality, and that can be adopted and adopted in
other context, particularly in developing countries with similar problems and lack of resources.
We have switched from the architect that only designs houses or buildings, or the icon to be
published, to the one that works within the community, explore solutions and propose experi-
mental results. Most of them are in the blurred border of installations in transforming contexts,
that give solution to temporal needs (emergency housing for disaster recovery, for instance),
or are keen to approach a certain social area by showing them which are their strengths, rather
than to show an “A” solution.
The whole continent is an open urban lab today and many of the successful solutions given to
enhance urban quality of life have to be analyzed, assessed and understood. This is a starting
point, to be able to address a more inclusive and enriched architectural process rooted in the
places where we have to live.

Ben, C. (2006). La enseñanza de la Arquitectura y los procesos de investigación-acción, Ediciones Universidad
Nacional de Tucumán, Argentina.
BID. (2012).”Los desafíos de la década”, Reporte del Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, ICES.
Cartes, I. (2012) “Presencia de América Latina” en CLEFA XXIV Arquitectura y Urbanismo en Latinoamérica:
Tendencias emergentes, Conference proceedings. Universidad Veritas, San José de Costa Rica, on line www.
CLEFA (2014). CLEFA XXV “Crisis y perspectivas”, Conference proceedings. Universidad Nacional de Asunción,
Paraguay, on line
Mabardi, J. (2012. Maestría del Proyecto: Apuntes para la Práctica de la enseñanza del proyecto, Ediciones
Universidad del Bío-Bío, Concepción, Chile.
Ortiz, O & Alexander, L. (2005). Aprendizaje Desarrollador: Una estrategia pedagógica para educar instruy-
endo, Centro de estudios pedagógicos y didácticos, CEPDID, Barranquilla, Colombia.
Plataforma de Arquitectura. (2007).
elemental-chile/ 17 Septiembre 2007

Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

President of the Union of Schools and Faculties of Architecture and Design of Central
America (UDEFADAC), Dean of Faculty of Architecture, University of Saint Carlos of
Guatemala, Guatemala

The Profile of the Architect in Central America

and in the Globalized World
The Latin American panorama of architectural education

The Central American isthmus is composed of seven small countries: Guatemala, El Salvador,
Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panamá and Belize.
Within the integration efforts and exchange it was founded in the year 2005, the UNION OF
Main purpose: to promote the integration process of institutions in charge of the formation
of architects and designers, through the creation of a common academic space in Central
America, based on scientific, technological, educational and cultural cooperation, between
all of their members.
In recent years the priority strategies of schools and faculties of architecture in Central America,
have revolved around the following:
1. Technology change, in the digital age.
2. Common parameters for a Global Architect
3. Accreditation
4. Internationalization of architecture versus identity
5. More emphasis on management in heritage, environment and risk to natural hazards

Technology Change, in the digital age

The current educational phenomenon has the characteristic that the teacher was formed by
a preceding generation, slowly and in a traditional way, under the premise that this would be
what he would teach in the future. Actually, this has been partially true, since only part of what
was learned by the teacher and that is related to the knowledge combined with the experience
of life, is applicable to his teaching; while for everything related to technology, knowledge
and communication; he has had to learn it by himself sometimes from younger generations.
This condition has allowed him to teach in a world where knowledge is not as important as
knowing how to apply it.
In Central America, this phenomenon is also evident, because knowledge is as never, avail-
able to the student and the teacher, but the latter is responsible for showing how to use it in
every profession. Young people today must constantly adapt to forms of education and to an
avalanche of information, which is not necessarily educational. 85
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

The rapid evolution of technological tools and the digital age, have created young people
with ways of learning that are very different to those shown by the youth of the same age
in the past.
Regarding informatics and communication technology, ICT, it can say that whatever is being
taught to them today as new, will no longer make part of what will serve the youth in the
future, because when he arrives to the end of his training, the knowledge learned will be
For Central American countries, this challenge is even greater since educational institutions
are not always capable of purchasing technology constantly and update periodically their
computers to the latest versions of computer software. This phenomenon has been clearly
expressed in the following way:
"Before, a book could remain for decades the unquestioned academic authority, then they
began to be updated every five years, because it was the reasonable time when advances
research and discoveries indicated that the information had changed and it was needed to
perform a series of adjustments. Today, information changes daily. Never humanity had suffered
so many changes as in recent years”. 1

Common parameters for a Global Architect

Architectural education and the teacher of architecture, has had to adapt to the demands posed
by society at the time, which thanks to the effectiveness of digital communication, demands
the formation of an architect capable to develop his work in all parts of the world; because as
well as the handling of living space and form that encloses it, the society demands a series of
requirements and prompts architects to make a more environmentally friendly architecture,
with cultural identity, conscious with the insertion in urban contexts, and also requires the
architect the application of new technologies and knowledge of the technical and administra-
tive procedures as well as construction process management.
While it is true that these lines of action of the architecture can be considered common to all
people, as there is a common base, it is the local, which gives a distinctive form of application.
So for example, any architect anywhere in the world, should be perfectly capable of knowing
the mode of application of certain construction technology, or at least, be able to find and
process information, but only his knowledge of the local context will allow him to find out if his
application is suitable or not. If this occurs properly, the society can verify that the architects,
has been formed competently.
Each one of the schools of architecture collect these social requirements, and sets a minimum
to meet these requisites, searches the focus and emphasis that wants to give to the profes-
sional training in architecture.
This is what allows the existence of the individual and local competencies, because although,
there is a common fundamental base between institutions that respond to the demands of
the context, not all curricula are the same, as the educational institution is looking to have a
hallmark that distinguishes it, and commonly finds: trying to serve a social segment, framing
itself in a religion or ideology, in response to a state law, using certain technology or privileg-
86 ing the research, among others.
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

In Central America, without an exhaustive search for information, it can find a whole range
of these approaches. A few years ago, it knew better the differences manifested by these
approaches, and little was known of the similarities among plans of studies.
All of seven small countries of Central America share history and diverse and complex social
and economic problems. Immersed in an increasingly demanding world, the institutions of
higher education should seek quality in education, but that has not focused only on improving
the common skills, but rather to make more different, the individual approaches.
Set the limits of the common skills of the Central American architects, has not been an easy task,
thanks to the work of the Tuning Latin America project, which established 33 specific compe-
tencies for the architect, it was obtained for the first time, a kind of comparison parameter that
has allowed the architectural curricula, to know how they are in relation to the Tuning model.


In the year 2006, was created the Central American Agency for the Accreditation of Architecture
and Engineering program, ACAAI. This agency searches to certify architecture and engineering
programs of Central America.
This organization was formed thanks to the participation of teachers from all countries as well
as representatives from various Central American associations of architects and engineers.
As a result of this, it was possible to make the experiment of finding the delimitation of the
competencies of the Central American architect, so that the participants drew up a list of quali-
ties and parameters that serve as a standard in order to establish similarities and differences
between institutions.
Likewise, ACAAI has also left a clearance, which allows programs undergoing evaluation, to
explain their main focus or emphasis that characterizes it. However, ACCAI, being an institution
that seeks to certify programs, does not issue a public report on common, local or particular
competencies, of the programs that are undergoing an accreditation process or the institutions
that constitute it, remaining an individual reference for each institution.
Today, it can be easily found on the Internet, the requirements of accrediting agencies from all
over the world, and also, it is possible to access the websites of educational institutions, so that
finding information to establish the common or different is not difficult, and then, establish
the differences and similarities of the competencies of the architecture programs, is not as
important as how to find mechanisms and strategies for the achievement of the common and
uncommon competencies. It is in these aspects, where actually are the differences between
each of the institutions, mainly in its proposal for adaptability to constant change.

Internationalization of architecture versus identity

The rapidly evolving of ICT, involves constant adjustment of curricula related to the teaching
of architecture, so that acceptance of continuous change and the adaptability proposal, must
be part of the management and educational administration.
The amount of information offered by the Internet and the methods or tools in which this
information is provided, constitutes an advantage to which the teacher has had to adapt, 87
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

because he must handle the temptation of the student, of the copy-paste or of the thoughtless
application and adapt their teaching strategies to the use of these tools, which until recently
were not considered serious forms of education.
So, free access to sources of information related to the construction of architectural works, has
enabled professionals, teachers and students, to get to know immediately after its creation,
it is even possible to find virtual projects, blogs, specific pages of architecture and pages of
architecture students crossing this information.
This has caused that many professionals in their quest to make a "current or modern" archi-
tecture, apply architectural details thoughtlessly, emulating buildings that are taken as icons
of architecture, issue that has been done before and that has resulted in the styles and trends
in architecture, but never to the extent that is happening now.
This can be exemplified by the Dubai Center building, built in Guatemala city, whose exterior
evokes not only the famous hotel in the city of the same name, but also to make it more similar
on the outside, metal palm trees were placed.
If a professional, who has more experience and his own criterion, uses these resources, it can
be explained, but not to approve, why architecture students are dazzled with these forms and
technologies and repeat them without further study in the design exercises that they perform,
forgetting to analyze the natural, urban and cultural context to which it must respond.
The interiors of these buildings, by contrast, are the result of forcing the outer shape, so the
space and comfort are sacrificed, forcing them to require air conditioning systems and continu-
ous lighting, which are not needed in countries with climate relatively stable as can be seen
in Central America.

Fig. 1 Fig. 2
88 Hotel in Dubai, Dubai city, United Arab Emirates. Dubai Center building, Guatemala City.
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

More emphasis in the curricula of architecture, in heritage, environment

and risk management in front of threats of natural phenomena


The indicated in the previous paragraph, has made the curricula of most institutions, incorporate
subjects or contents that emphasize respect of environment, traditions and cultural identity.
That is nothing more than a struggle of some institutions to teach students to respect the local
architecture, rich in proven experiences, but that is being displaced by the copy-paste of exam-
ple taken as references, but that is applied without a reasoned adaptation and without identity
It is possible to produce a contemporary local architecture, with their own language, if and
only if:
• There is an inward look
• The contextual environmental setting is analyzed
• The past is reinterpreted
"Originality consists in returning to the origin" Antonio Gaudi.
This is not about talking of Neo Maya or Neo Colonial architecture. This is about looking from
within and not from the outside, about being honest, to abstract and to synthesize. Respect
the patrimonial and contrast the new from the old. It is about saying no to the false historical
or make antiques in the 21st century.

Fig. 3
Architecture in search of a local language. Top: National Theater of Guatemala. Efrain Recinos.Bottom-left:
Mayan world museum, Project Faculty of Architecture, University of San Carlos of Guatemala. Bottom-
right: Mall Amerigo Giracca. 89
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

At the same time the curricular changes for the formation of the architecture at the undergradu-
ate level have to be strengthened, in order to exchange between countries the intervention
practices in heritage and taking as a base the experience of the masters of Guatemala and
Spain, it was structured the Central American Master in Conservation and Management of
Cultural Heritage for Development. This one began in the year 2009 with the first cohort of
Central American students.

Environment and risk management to threats of natural phenomena

The Central American isthmus is the only region in the world located between two continents
and two oceans, It is a paradise that has a great bio diversity and agro forestry areas of consider-
able wealth. In very short distances occur geophysical, climatic changes and wonderful scenic
landscapes. However there is an acute environmental degradation.

Fig. 4
Some scenic landscapes of Central America.
Top: Semuc Champey. Middle: San Juan del
90 Sur. Bottom: Sarstun River.
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

Due to its location and soil, the region Centro American has a high rate of natural threats
either geomorphic or hydro meteorological, the latter aggravated by global climate change,
of which Central America is not the main cause , but is one of the more affected areas of the
world. The problem is not to live at risk by threats, is the vulnerability created by the poverty
in which most of the Central American population live. Vulnerability: natural threats + poverty
= disaster. Central America is one of the most dangerous regions of the world and one of the
first in vulnerability.

Threats of Central America

North American Plate

Caribbean plate


Average direction
of hurricanes

Cocos plate

Cocos plate

In order to strengthen the knowledge within the environmental issue and risk management,
architecture schools have been making curricular changes. This has been accompanied by
significant efforts of universities and professional associations, with the creation of the fol-
lowing entities:

Central American Council for Sustainable Construction

It was founded in 2010. It seeks to promote environmental parameters and indicators for certi-
fication of sustainable buildings, according to the environmental characteristics of the region,
favoring passive systems for energy efficiency. It has developed seven indicators:
• Efficient use of water
• Energy efficiency
• Soil and landscaping
• Origin and production of building materials.
• Quality and wellness space
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

• Environment and Transportation

• Socio-economic aspects

Interuniversity Network, in Analysis and Evaluation of Natural Threat in Central America.

Exchange experiences in research and postgraduate in earth sciences, as well as in manage-
ment for disaster risk reduction, from the perspective of spatial planning and prevention. It
started in the year 2011.

Finally, as a corollary of all that has been set out above, to gen-
erate competencies in students, it is important to consider the
wisdom of the Mayas in the comprehensiveness of training, a
deep reflection that has been transmitted from generation to
Four basics in it´s based the Maya's education:
1. Become a person
2. Have knowledge and wisdom
3. Learn to respect nature
4. Learn to work

tency curriculum No.8 MEDUCA, Panama, 2013.

Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

Tore Brandstveit HAUGEN

Rector NAA - Nordic Academy of Architecture, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway

The text below has been transcribed and edited by the editors to ensure flow and coherence of the
entrie book, as there was no response by the presenter to provide his original text within the deadline.

Thank you for inviting me and the others from the Nordic and Baltic countries to this event. I
am here in my capacity as the newly elected Rector for the Nordic Academy of Architecture,
which consists of fifteen schools in the Nordic and Baltic countries. I am intending this to
be a short presentation, but I would like to touch upon some of the issues, which were also
mentioned in the first keynote lecture today; I found the speech very inspiring. However, I
am reflecting a little on these illustrations, which show something about how we manage
change in architecture.
This is a pavilion made by a Norwegian architectural firm called Snohetta which is a very devel-
oped and international company. It has gone from being what most Norwegian companies are,
which is very domestic, to having a very international profile, which the company has actually
always had. This is in a National Park; it is an architectural pavilion designed under very strict
conditions regarding the environment. There is a strong focus to be adhered to on the environ-
ment and on sustainability; this company is also very strong in designing and constructing
environmentally responsible buildings for the future. Allow me just to reflect on the name of
the company, which means the peak of a snow mountain; it can be seen here in the distance.
Here they have also used the latest technology: it is digitally designed, digitally manufactured
and then moved to the site. It is not a traditional contract company, which has built this; it is a
shipbuilding company, which can do these kinds of constructions. This is, therefore, pushing
at the future and it is something, which has to be picked up in our education.
I have a couple of roles; in my opinion, I think it is even acceptable to look into a consultancy
firm. This is something we went to Australia to see: what are the things or the people setting the
premises and the policies for higher education in the future? We were interested in knowing
what the drivers for change were. Personally, I have been asked to be in charge of the mission
project for our university, looking into the needs for our campus in fifteen or thirty years’ time.
We then took these kinds of issues; we had heard about them, but when we look at the other
companies, we can see that they are actually very good at creating these kinds of scenarios
and analyses. They are also subsequently part of the policy making. Something else I feel it
is interesting to discuss is the democratisation of knowledge and access to knowledge. The
massive increase in the availability of knowledge online means a fundamental change in the
role of higher education as coordinators and keepers of knowledge. We have heard about the
example of MIT, but this is something that is relevant to architectural education. At the same
time, when we talk about making things and becoming an architect, there are also issues which
cannot be acquired solely from the literature or from the Net; you have to be present and learn
by doing. I, therefore, think that it is partly correct, but it is interesting to see how it will affect
our schools and education within architecture.
The change in markets is fundamental; we know it is there and we know it will continue; indeed,
it will most probably become increasingly difficult. One needs a profile and has to compete, 93
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

both for students and for government and private funds. Changes can be seen in regard to
students: how they are recruited; how they leave the university to become architects and enter
the world of global markets. This will also have a long-term impact on us. There have been
examples given of digital technology; I feel we are still in the early stages. Not much was known
about the Worldwide Web and the Internet before 1993; these totally transformed working
practices into what exists nowadays.
There is also the question as to who is in control of these global technologies; how these tech-
nologies affect education is also a vitally important question. Global mobility will grow while
students and academics will travel to learn in different environments. There is a further point,
which is more concerned with the private side of architecture: this is the issue of integration
with industry. If industry is included together with the public needs and the public obligations
we have as architects, and innovation in that respect, then I think it is important to develop
these kinds of relationships, both in the learning programmes and in research. I would like to
share some reflections about the Nordic countries, which are of course the countries about
which I know the most. I also know something about the Baltic countries, but not so much
detail about the schools there. We also have similar global drivers for change. Student and
staff mobility is changing; there is the effect of internationalisation as well as the impact of
digitalisation and the influence of the Net.

There are also changes in the market. However, there are also some major differences from
the typical picture, which is drawn. There is a very strong commitment to public and govern-
mental guidelines on requirements concerning sustainability and the environment. What we
hear from our ministries is that for a long time in the future, certainly in Norway, we will have
publically funded higher education. There is also a strong social democratic tradition that also
feeds into our educational programmes. There are different profiles; I think what is interesting
is that in the future for us in the Nordic Academy and in the Nordic schools, we will examine
and develop greater differences between our profiles. There is the additional question of how
we will develop in terms of an international perspective.
I would like to illustrate this by using one very good example, which is an application to become
a Centre of Excellence in higher education from our university NTNU. This has a positive out-
come: we competed with twenty-four groups in the spring; this was cut down to eight. Archi-
tecture has to compete with all the other different groups and disciplines. Something that has
been developed within our university and school, and then within the school in architecture,
is a strong sense of this knowledge about knowing and understanding, acting and being in
becoming an architect. That means being able to relate to the changes and challenges of our
time: it includes climate change, the economic crisis as well as the wide scale of environmental
crisis. Flooding has been an issue, which has arisen lately in Norway; this challenged some of
the old traditions. We say that we need to develop skills, knowledge and the right attitude
that will allow for the adjustment to rapid change.
Equally important is the need to develop a practical responsiveness; only by having an attitude
of responsiveness and responsibility towards our environment can our profession be part of
the solution and not the problem. This, as well as tradition, was the basis for what was strong
in this application. It is a little what we heard about design and innovation centre this morning,
94 when Alfonzo’s speech linked into some of the idea that learning is thinking by making and
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

reflection. We have a strong tradition of problem-based learning, a tradition that goes back
fifteen to twenty years; and of designing buildings of full-scale pavilions already in the first half
of the year. There are very few compulsory courses on theory; it is mainly based on the practical.
The need has been recognised to develop another understanding of complexity and change: in
the application we have used something called the integral approach; this relates to the process
of understanding system engineering and system thinking in dealing with and working in an
interdisciplinary way on a number of these large challenges. We have also developed another
way of learning, using live studios. Here, very often it is students who take the initiative to go
worldwide. We support them by bringing their projects into real-life situations, in Asia or in
Africa, and the students learn to improvise. They also learn to communicate effectively and to
respond architecturally within a responsible social setting. Finally, the part of being engaged
in society in a global perspective, is an important driving force and that is the position we are
taking in our attempt to meet future challenges.

Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

Closing remarks from the Session Chair

Ted Landsmark, USA

How do we map differences in the management of change and how do we map strategies that
support our members in their efforts to address change? This conversation is not about whether
change is taking place – that is taken as an assumption, a given – it is about how we manage
change. It is not about whether, it is about how. I would like to say a couple of words from my
own perspective before each of our presenters has ten minutes to present and then hopefully
we will have a very free-wheeling discussion, which I think is always necessary, before lunch.
The first comment is that change is inevitable, whether one considers it an avalanche or not.
The second assumption that we have made at the National Architectural Accrediting Board is
that the pace of change, the velocity of change will never be this slow again. That is, what we
think is rapidly accelerating is accelerating even faster than most of us can begin to grasp and it
will not slow down. The third assumption that we made was that we can either as associations
work to impede change, that is, to try to slow it down, or we can respond to change, which
always puts us in a reactive mode. Or we can figure out how we can facilitate change in ways
that are advantageous to our students, to our faculty and to our institutions.
The perspective that we took at the Accrediting Board at the United States was that it was
our obligation to facilitate and manage change, rather than trying to stand in its way. Our
key underlying assumption is that as an accrediting board, our responsibility now is to move
away from traditional assessment measures and to focus more on the assessment of learning
outcomes as demonstrated in student work. So we no longer look at the number of office
spaces, the number of volumes in a library, the number of computers in a laboratory. What we
ask is, does the student work actually reflect that those students have learned what it is that
we say they are learning? If the student work shows it, then learning has taken place; if the
student work does not show it, then no matter how many classrooms or computers you may
have, the learning is not taking place. We felt that as change agents, we had to take certain
steps to facilitate the changes that we anticipate need to be made. The first was to recognise
that change is happening. We found that many of our peers were in change denial and that
this was not helpful to our students.
The second point was that everything we did and everything we do, has to be open and trans-
parent, so that if you go to the NAAB website, which is, you will find that virtually
everything I am saying here is posted on that website. The next thing we realised was that all
of the participants in change had to be actively engaged in the process of change. That meant
that we had to go through a number of procedures to open ourselves up as an accrediting
board to the thinking and ideas of people outside of ourselves. To that end, we conducted a
survey of all of the people we could think of who might be involved in changing or wanting
to change accreditation standards in the United States. Surveys were distributed to 18,000
people and we received responses to those surveys from 4,200 individuals. In addition to their
survey responses, we received 500 pages of additional comments. That survey is posted on our
website. We asked for a set of research papers to be done, to take a hard look at what it was
schools were saying about the current standards, what the team chairs were saying about the
96 current standards and what the deans of programmes were saying about the current standards.
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

We took all of that information in and assessed it. We also commissioned certain additional
studies to be done to look into particular areas of major concern in our current assessment
processes. We did an assessment of how student learning outcomes were working in various
schools. We had a major conversation about how we defined and assessed what we mean
by comprehensive design learning. In the United States, more than a quarter of the schools
were failing the final comprehensive design assessment standard. We felt that if that many
schools were failing, either something was wrong with the schools, or something was wrong
with the assessment tool. We therefore did a study of comprehensive design and what that
really meant. We then asked all of the people who might be interested in changing the current
standards to submit white papers to us: the American Institute of Architects, the Association
of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, our student group, and our licensing group.
All submitted white papers, as did organisations representing community colleges that send
us transfer students, minority colleges and individuals, people concerned about sustainability,
and every one of those white papers was published and is available for you to look at on our
website. We then went back to the 2008 work that was done to categorise the different models
of accreditation that we were prepared to look at. We prepared a short paper listing what
all of those different accreditation approaches might be; that is also on the website. Finally,
a month and a half ago, we held a major conference and invited 50 individuals from across
the United States from all of our various collateral constituencies to spend two days on the
side of a mountain at 8,000 feet in Utah, where there was no place for them to shop and no
place for them to wander away from the meeting. We specifically created a technology-free
zone, so they were not permitted to use their laptops, their i-pads or their smart phones at
any time during our two-day meeting. That was painful for many of the participants, but it
worked. It enabled us to have a two-day conference where everyone focused on the changes
that needed to be made, and because of that focus, we were able to fulfil our promise that we
would have a draft set of new conditions available to everyone within a month. That draft set
of conditions is also now published as of 48 hours ago on our website and anyone in the world
can download this and look at it and comment on it. Everyone has until December 1st 2013
to read this, to comment on it and to get back to us with any changes that might be made. I
know that some of my colleagues have already begun to do that. All of this is available at naab.
org. I encourage you to weigh in on that. Sometime early next year that draft will be revised
and new standards will be put into place that will last for the next five years.
The last thing I will say relates to my role as the president of one of the largest architecture
and design schools in the Unites States. We also have undergone major change over the past
year and a half. Two thirds of my senior staff have been replaced in the last year and a half
because they were resistant to change. We have adopted online learning in a robust way and
that is our fastest-growing part of our curriculum. We have revised our curriculum so that it
reflects multi-disciplinarity and a deeper commitment to engaging our students at the outset
in service to clients and community. Our classes started last week and our students last week
were involved in Boston with forty different community service projects as their introduction
to architecture, interior design and landscape architecture. This change is not easy. Describing
the how of one processes the politics and ethics of transforming the pedagogy is what we will
be talking about here in this session and for the balance of the day. I encourage all of you not
to hold back: this is the time to jump in and expresses your deepest fears, concerns or hopes
for what we are doing as educators to move forward in a way that better prepares our gradu- 97
Session 1 Managing Change: Profiling Change in a Globalised World

ates to address the challenges of professional practice today. My last comment from the NAAB
perspective is: we sought to open up and make more flexible our processes and procedures.
Whether we have come down in the right place or not we will know very quickly because we
have used a transparent process. I will also say however that we have begun to implement
certain changes already. Where a year ago the length of accreditation was six years, we have
changed that to eight. Schools will now have more time to be able to process change without
a fear that the accreditors will show up and evaluate them based upon the old curriculum
rather than on the progressive innovative things that they want to do with a new curriculum.
We are making other changes like that and we encourage a discussion on that subject. That
being said, I will turn the floor over to the first speaker.

Session 2
Managing change:
Academic leadership
and teaching
Our architectural education system is structured upon the hypothesis that
the profile of graduates generated nowadays will stay valid throughout
their professional life or at least in a very big part of it. However, in the
recent past we are experiencing radical changes in the way we think, con-
ceive, create and practise architecture paired with equally radical changes
in the building industry, the construction methods, the real estate man-
agement and the investments in the domain of the built environment. All
these changes generate demands for a new way of thinking architectural
design for new knowledge, skills and competences questioning those
who are actually ensured by our institutions. In this dynamics of change
we increasingly feel unable to predict the future profile of the architect,
while having serious reasons to believe that this will not be the same.
How can we organise architectural education in this new context of
What profile(s) will emerge from the education our schools offer?
What will be the competences, which can best assure a sustainable archi-
tectural career?
How can we structure flexible, adaptable and responsive curricula?
Session 2 Managing change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Dag Boutsen, Ghent, Belgium

Introductory panel:
Anne Mette Boye, Aarhus, Denmark
Denise Pinheiro Machado, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Konstantinos Moraitis, Athens, Greece
Frederikc Cooper, Lima, Peru
Art Rice, Raleigh, USA
Hugo Dworzak, Vaduz, Liechtenstein

Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Anne-Mette BOYE
Leader professional and academic development, Aarhus School of Architecture,
Aarhus, Denmark

Engaging through Architecture

Creating a Mindset
In a world that seems to become more and more interrelated, digital and global there is a clear
focus on the need to rethink the skills of the architect. The architectural education is adapting
to introduce students to new technologies, provide training to meet demands for new forms
of collaboration and integrate, for example, sustainable solutions. Seen in a historic perspective
this is just a natural part of continually adapting to changes in society and practice.
It is nothing new that a great number of architecture students (in Denmark approximately one-
third) will not be practicing architecture in what is considered a traditional architectural job.
This leaves one-third to other professions - sometimes working in related areas, as art curators
or animators, others find employment in very different fields.
We also see that students are not only educated through studies at their schools. Their educa-
tion (informally, but maybe equally important) takes place though their own networks, the
internet and through involvement in projects outside the school.
The above statements point to a discussion on what skills are to be taught to students of
architecture to prepare them in the best possible way for professional life after graduation.
What kind of teaching is needed, and how can we design an organization that supports this
kind of teaching activities?

Education is about Creating a Mindset

This article’s first aim is to present a shift from a focus on the architectural education as
consisting of teaching skills to understanding education as the creation of a state of mind.
The core of this focus is the proposal that architecture can be seen as an agent for change:
that it is possible to engage in society, to collaborate, to create and make changes through
architecture. The fundamental question is thus not what skills architects will need in the
future, but how architecture, and thinking as an architect, is to contribute to better living
conditions in the future?
The article will present a short introduction to the approach of architecture as an agent for
change and present real examples of how this approach has been a generator for the strategy,
reorganization and restructuring of teaching at the Aarhus School of Architecture. I do not pre-
tend that these thoughts are ground-breaking. However, it is rare that the approach is pursued
so radically, with regard to strategy, reorganization and teaching level, as at the Aarhus School
of Architecture. Neither will I pretend that this reorganization has been or is an easy task, and
certainly not that everything has now been settled. A secondary aim of the article is thus to
contribute a concrete example to the discussion on future education and academic leadership.
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Architecture as an Agent for Change

Students of architecture are to be taught the classical skills of working with spatiality, mate-
riality, light and scale. They have to feel safe in knowing and exploring subject methods and
processes. They have to know the value of a pure artistic approach and that developing an
architectural language has a right of its own. These are some of the skills that make architects
differ from other professionals.
However, if we step back from the discussion of education and step into the act of practice, we
come to realize that when we build, plan, initiate or draw – it is not primarily the architecture
itself that is the object. Furthermore, it is not an accomplishment the architect manages on
his own, but the result of collaboration with many stakeholders and disciplines.
The commission of, for example, a building is often motivated by a client’s desire to embrace a
problem. It could, for instance, be establishing a new feature, a new identity, an organizational
change, a mood, an experience or something else. The building emerges as a unifying solu-
tion, which embraces a scope of information, knowledge, desires, dreams and requirements.
But maybe the solution could have been something different, such as a product design, a
reorganization of the institution or the implementation of a new behaviour.
The point is that if we can create a mindset in which students approach a challenge through
questions that are not about architecture – but about how to improve a situation - we have
a chance to let architecture contribute to society in a more diverse way. This approach places
architecture and the working methods of architecture in a broad context and provides space
to explore and enlarge the architectural field. If this is the goal, students not only have to
be proficient designers, they have to be able to complete two-way iterative processes that
alternate between critical analysis, sincere and open questions and innovative and honest
design solutions.
As stated earlier, this approach is not revolutionary, but its radical implementation and practice
is still limited. I have used it as the leading mindset of my own practice: metopos urban design
and landscape. It has, among more traditional commissions, such as transformation of postin-
dustrial areas, urban renewals, parks, implantation of temporary use, resulted in commissions
such as the analysis of physical activity in social housing, education in rural Denmark and local
“tourist maps”. Much more well-know examples of institutions with a similar approach are think

Fig. 1
102 Cycle of two-way iterative processes in project based teaching. Illustration: Anne Mette Boye.
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

tanks like AMO, the studio: The Why Factory , at the university of Delft, and //:00 architects in
London. The book Future Practice, which contains a number of interviews with people from
different offices, may also be useful for exploring the field further.

Strategy: Engaging through Architecture

The strategy of the Aarhus School of Architecture is:

Engaging through Architecture

The purpose of the title is to state that architecture can be a way to engage with the broad
challenges that our society is faced with. For example: how does it affect inhabitants in rural
areas when architects are no longer asked to build, but to dismantle. And how can architecture
and design engage in solutions aimed at improving quality of life for an increasingly aging
population? And what is a public space if all trade is moved to the internet. Is it even possible
to create public spaces, if the State cannot finance them?
The methods, knowledge and perspectives provided by architects are thus seen as valid in
future research, both in analyses, in knowledge building, and for proposing integrated solu-
tions. Being able to read the physical space, to understand how space matters and not least
being able to merge a complexity of challenges and knowledge into a proposal that can act
and change a situation are some of the skills architect can use for engaging. This does not mean
that architecture can “save the world”. It is easy to recall failed attempts to do so, and maybe it
is even the thought of those attempts that makes some contemporary architects more humble
with regard to dictating society – and maybe this has even made architects humble to the
extent that, in some cases, it resembles marginalization. Nor does it mean that the aesthetic
and the artistic approach are not valid. Quite the opposite – this approach is one of the unique
skills of the architect, which makes him different from other professionals.
Architecture emerges as the unifying solution that embraces a scope of information, knowl-
edge, desires, dreams and requirements. From talking about the broad vision, great intentions
and loose ideas the architect has the ability to formulate and design a concrete proposal.
“Engaging through Architecture” is thus both a belief that architecture can make a difference
- and a humble recognition that architecture is more than an autonomous subject, it is part
of a larger context.
Based on the strategy statement: “Engaging through Architecture” the School has reorganized
its structure of research, teaching and leadership. The School has changed from being organized
in four institutes framing the disciplines Architecture, Urban Planning and Landscape, Design,
and Cultural Heritage to creating an organization that cuts across traditional disciplines and
The result is an academic environment in which different academic focus areas and approaches
are combined in 14 self-organizing platforms. These platforms are formed by the interests of
the staff and have no formal leaders. Every year the platforms present their activities – some-
times platforms are discontinued and new ones established. They are to nurture the academic
development and provide “homelands” for the academic staff. The platforms provide a basis
for research and contribute to teaching activities - often in collaboration with other platforms. 103
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Fig. 2
The process of changing the organization of the Aarhus School of Architecture from four units based
on disciplines to several platforms organized according to the academic focus of the staff. Illustration:
Torben Nielsen.


To encourage the strategy in teaching, the ambition is to educate graduates in environments

where they are exposed to very different architectural issues and approaches. Students are
to be immersed in experimental environments that have the capacity to transcend fixed dis-
ciplines and scales. Not in order to master these disciplines, but to gain knowledge and thus
respect for the possible contribution of other disciplines. Cooperation with other disciplines
will also sharpen their understanding of their own discipline, and develop an understanding
of how architectural tools and perspectives can open a challenge. In such an environment they
are forced to take a stand and try out both traditional core disciplines and the boundaries of
Our bachelor programme focuses on methods and tools. Our master's programme offers teach-
ing in 11 studios working with different individual approaches. Each studio runs for a minimum
of one year, but may potentially run for several years. Sometimes, these studios are collabo-
rations between platforms, sometimes a studio involves other institutions, offices, different
disciplines or even examples from clients.
It has been a goal to create both a solid and agile education that is able to address current
issues or test new approaches. As an example, this year we have a studio working with
one of the country's leading architectural practices on Cradle2Cradle materials, another
studio works with citizens and local government on building a new suburb based on social
innovation, and last year a studio worked with rethinking water in Venice, and the platform
Product Design collaborated with the platform Urban Design and Landscape in a studio
on the city's mobility.

Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Fig. 3
Rethinking flooding, water collection, drink-
ing water and climate in Venice. Illustration:
Kirsty Badenoch.

Fig. 4
“Happy Cycling City – Aarhus” provided new solutions embracing the combination of parking, light and
maintenance to improve the experience of cycling. Illustration: Studio Urban Design and Studio Design.

Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Fig. 5
In Studio Regenerative Architecture students have created a site where production, research, technol-
ogy companies, food and experiences as well as housing exist together in symbiosis. A Green materials
hub recycles materials to be used for compostable pavilions and building materials. Illustration: Casper
Østergaard Christensen and Christian Overgaard Jensen.

Fig. 6
Studio Democracity is an experiment embracing teaching, post graduation education and urban develop-
ment though citizen interaction. One student in cooperation with citizens transformed a post-agricultural
106 building into a station for the exchange of skills, artefacts and services. Illustration: Lena Monrad Gade.
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching


Engaging though architecture is also about understanding architecture in practice.

To facilitate this, the Aarhus School of Architecture has created both an external network
embracing academia and the profession and an internal framework for integrating practice
into the different parts of the school. The underlying philosophy is that all activities are inte-
grated into student projects and/or research conducted at the school. Both more traditional
practices related to, for example, the process of realizing a building and to thinking student
projects into untraditional contexts. Through this knowledge and practice relations, students
are encouraged to think as entrepreneurs in the field of architecture.

Fig. 7
Integration of practice at the Aarhus School of Architecture. Illustration: Anne Mette Boye.

Design Realization

As part of this focus, the aim has been to give students a base to make their architectural
visions real. One of these initiatives is to prepare graduates to become involved professionally
early in the realization phase, and, secondly, to train students to take an academic position on
external requirements early in the project development.
To address this issue, in the spring of 2013 the Aarhus School of Architecture completed a test
run involving a mentoring programme in which students presented their own studio projects
to architectural practices in order to receive advice on the realization phase from experienced
mentors. The process received positive feedback from students as well as teachers and men-
tors. It is now, from the spring of 2014 onwards, being implemented in all master studios once
a year. A supporting lecture series supplements the mentor programme.
Design realization will provide students with knowledge about the kind of process their own
studio projects will have to go through if they are to be realised. This is an introduction to
knowledge about the typical regulatory and technical requirements their studio project will
encounter in a realization process. It is knowledge of project phases, collaborations, responsi-
bilities and organization. It is here implicit that what realization is will depend on the individual
studio projects. For some projects it could be producing an exhibition, an article or a book.
For others it will be the construction of the building or producing a design product, and for
others again an urban development plan or the construction of a landscape project. It will
depend on the focuses and learning objectives of individual studios. 107
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching


In the fall of 2013, a test-run on an entrepreneurial course was carried out. The course was
called HANDLING and introduced students to how they might find partners and communicate
their projects to outside parties.
The idea behind the initiative is that the entrepreneurial ability to create new solutions that
transform challenges into concrete proposals, are all elements that already have a major bearing
on architectural education. Based on this approach an introduction to entrepreneurship should
not be about business prospects or economical models, but rather about making students
recognize the value of their ideas and projects.
Thus the workshop course is designed to equip students to let their projects meet a world
outside the school. They are encouraged to examine the core idea of their projects and review
its value of interest to others. It means that they are guided to think of potential partners or
customers, to tighten up the process, communicate and argue for their project.
In the fall of 2014, this course is offered to all Master’s degree students on the 9th semester.


One of the initiatives made through the external practice-academic network is the debate
series OpenRoom. OpenRoom in 2014 will serve as a mental space that allows room for meta-
reflections across traditional organizational boundaries - inviting researchers, practitioners,
students, international opinions and professional builders and decision-makers to engage
in a deeper discussion of some of the issues in society that architecture can engage with.
OpenRoom is also a space for individual contributors to reflect on and communicate their daily
work. Bringing students’ thoughts, knowledge and attitudes into play in a highly experienced
group will give students a chance to test themselves. To bring in outside perspectives not
only architects are invited, but also, for example, political scientists, philosophers, sociologists,
biologists, geologists, etc.
The seminars are to be recorded as videos and posted on a public website. Also the debates
will be summarized in an illustrated publication along with an introduction, a conclusion and
perspectives. In this way OpenRoom is intended to facilitate the meeting of specialists from
research and practice and to visualize professional challenges relating to dissemination to both
public-private parties, government departments and the public realm.

Under Construction

At the time of writing this, these initiatives and changes are just aimed at establishing a real
footing. Workflows, teaching activities, organization and management structures are being
adjusted on a regular basis. The organization and the content and quality of the education are
subject to an ongoing discussion at the School. The acceptance of a constant process and the
fact that there are no final, clear answers are basic premises.
Taking this into account, the article is to be read as a response to how a contemporary architec-
tural education and organization of a school of architecture can be shaped. The main point is
108 that we see teaching as just as much a matter of developing a mindset as a matter of teaching
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

skills; we prepare students to engage in architecture seen in a broader context. If students have
the ability to both detect the potential – or challenge – of and identify motivations behind
commissions, they will be able to identify possibilities in untraditional fields of architecture.
If they can understand the power of being able to master the complexity of information and
transform it into proposals, students will be able to argue architecture in a time when archi-
tecture seems marginalized, under pressure, and challenged by many other disciplines.
These abilities could be important for graduates when they have to navigate the world outside
the school; as students who are part of various networks and collaborations, e.g. when they
are to apply for jobs, for their value as entrepreneurial employees, and if they want to create
their own jobs.
Thus education is not just a question of adding new skills – but also of creating a state of mind
concerned with how architecture can be an agent for change.

Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching


Dean, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Notes on Architectural Education in Brazil

Architectural Education is facing the challenge of contemporaneity. The uncertainties of fast
changes, of growing competitiveness and complexity context pose us fundamental questioning
in terms of education. Who are we educating and for which reality? Which will be the needs
and answers to be given by architects in the near future?
Themes such as quality and excellence are present in every school. However, they are not
always faced in the same way. The cultural, structural and circumstantial specificities of each
context are crucial elements in education.
Our purpose is to present some thoughts about the universe of Architecture education in
Brazil, based in the experience of the School of Architecture and Urban Studies of the Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro – UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It is an important school in Brazil
and in Latin America.


Brazil is a continental country, with over 200 million inhabitants in 2013, where 84% of the
population lives in urban areas. The fast and recent process of urbanization is followed by
important social demands in cities, which lack in basic infrastructure, sanitation, housing, trans-
portation and others public utilities. In spite of the existence of social urgencies, the architects
still have small participation in public administration. The architect’s activities are primarily in
the studio, and many answer to the call of the real estate market.
Taking in consideration these different demands, it is worth to question the following:
Who to educate? For whom? For whose future? For the future of whose society?
The challenge of forming the future architect and urban designer does not only deal with
the technical knowledge but most of all it deals with humanistic studies which enables the
recognition of countless vulnerabilities in the contemporary society.
In Brazil, the course of Architecture and Urban Design takes 5 years. After graduation, the
student receives the diploma of Architect and Urban Designer and the permission to exercise
the professional competences.
In 2013, there were 293 courses of Architecture, 27 federation regions and in 147 cities. In the
state of Rio de Janeiro exists 21 courses of Architecture in 8 cities. In the metropolitan area
of Rio de Janeiro, the second metropolis of the country, there are 9 Architecture courses for
a population of 13 million inhabitants (7 million in the city of Rio de Janeiro). Among the 21
Schools in the state, only 4 are public schools.
Among the 293 courses, 54 are in public universities, corresponding to 18.5%. And, 80% of
the post-graduation courses (M.Sc. and PhD) are in public universities. Brazil has a public high
110 education system of great quality with important budget allocation for research in all areas of
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

knowledge. Frequently, the Schools of Architecture and Urban Design in public universities
present significantly higher levels than of the private system, not only in public investments in
infrastructure and research but especially in faculty qualification and capacity of the students.
The regional distribution of Architecture and Urban Design courses in Brazil corresponds to
population and wealth concentration. In this way, 46 % of the courses are in the Southeastern
region (São Paulo e Rio de Janeiro) of the country; 24.6 % in the Southern region; 11.6 % in
the Northeastern region; 11 % in the Center -western region (including Brasilia); and 6.8 % in
the Northern region.
Architecture education in Latin American context is different from the European because it is a
single one. Specializations such as Landscape Architecture, Urban Planning, Construction are
part of the curriculum of the architect. For undergraduates, there is no differentiated forma-
tion in these fields. The Schools of Architecture reinforce and reproduce the general approach,
and this is more for historical reasons to protect the professional marketplace than because
of theoretical and methodological ones to handle these issues.
However, on one side, there is society’s demand and on the other, the university institutional
pressure for integration and interdisciplinary create new ways for teaching and learning. These
new formations appear in new paradigms, those of intrinsic complexity and of the contempo-
rary society. Moving away from the professional boards, these new formations attract students
and, in some cases, they overlap the architectural defined field.
In a recent survey on the new professional demands in Brazil, it was seen the appearance of
more than 80 new professions for the last 10 years, where Architecture appears as one of the
reinvented professions, i.e., it is not new but it has taken new contours.

The School of Architecture and Urban Design of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro is one
of the most traditional ones in the country, where many renowned architects have studied
like Lucio Costa, Oscar Niemeyer and Affonso Eduardo Reidy, among others. It is housed in a
beautiful awarded Modern Architecture building from the 1950’s.
Nowadays, it is the biggest school of the country, with 1600 undergraduate students (Architec-
ture and Urbanism) and 400 graduate students coursing the two Post Graduation Programs:
MSc + PhD. The faculty is composed of 150 professors, of which 70 % have Doctors degree.
During the last 15 years, we have observed an important renewal in the faculty body of the
School due to retirement and to the arrival of young new professors. On the other hand, there
has been an increase in the number of enrolled students with greater learning deficiencies
acquired during high school. The social and economic level of the students has also been
continually dropping for the past years. This situation is the result of public policies that were
implemented to broaden and democratize the entrance to universities but without improving
and updating primary and secondary schools.
FAU/UFRJ has an obsolete academic administrative structure, in which six tight departments
compete for one single graduation, for Architecture and Urban Design. It is a core problem in
the School’s organization, and, it appears, because of its characteristics, as a serious enclave,
holding back the implementation of innovative practices and the integration of competences
and contents.
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Furthermore, the building where the School of Architecture is hosted, in spite of its undeniable
architectonic value and beauty presents huge proportions and architectonic conception that
hampers communication, integration and sharing of activities in its space.
Our School, as it belongs to the university federal system, is submitted to the policies of the
government for high education, i.e., the constant pressure from the government to increase
the number of students in order to keep the democratization of the public university and the
curricula integration among the different knowledge and competences.
Nevertheless, the main problem in the university system that affects Architecture education
not only in FAU/UFRJ as well as in other Schools of the country, is the fact of being subject to
research and teaching standards dictated by the rules of other fields of knowledge, this leads
pressure for productivity and frequently, to lack of understanding in the decision makings
levels regarding the specificities in the areas of Architecture. This fact reflects itself in a very
concerning manner when recruiting new faculty members because it limits the necessary
profile diversity. With the growing demand for PhD holders and full dedication, the architects
with practice and professional experience move away from the academia. This distancing from
the practical aspect in favor of the hegemony of theory results in important gaps in education
and in the development of knowledge.
Therefore, it can be said that we have three different orders of questions that influence Architec-
ture education in our school, although of different nature, yet, they are connected: structure and
organization of the School, historically defined; institutional inclusion in the university system;
and the exogenous scientific academic environment in relation to Architecture’s disciplines.
We consider that to have a School of Architecture with quality should be the right way to share
differences and value specificities.

For the last 20 years the debate about the curriculum has been present in our School. Finally,
in 2006, a new pedagogic project was implemented. It had as strong points, first, the course
reorganization into 3 cycles: primary, completion and synthesis and second, the attempt of
combination of contents in the integrated studios by the end of the two initial cycles. This
proposal, although being in force, is struggling to be fully implemented due to the tight cur-
riculum and departmental structure.
We thought that it would be interesting to tackle the problem of the curriculum linked to
academic administrative reorganization issues and to space use and occupation, as well as
to integration and innovation of academic practices, interchange and mobility of the student
body, improvement of the access to information through electronic media and increasing
bibliographic collections. These topics listed in a simple fashion may seem obvious and non-
specific. Nevertheless, the liaison between them, if aiming the improvement of education and
search for quality, is a complex process. Even though some are against this, it provides and
promotes creativity, innovative practices and integration.


Despite having a modern pedagogic project, we observed the difficulties to understand the
curriculum as part of education and the curricular grid as operational consequence of the cur-
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

riculum by the majority of the faculty. However, this differentiation is not obvious for many.
We could not fall in the same mistake of intending to implement a pedagogic project only as
an adaptation of the curricular grid.
I believe that the curricula must be very simple and flexible. Education must stimulate creative
capacities, that in many cases, are more important that information or specific knowledge.
The content by itself is not enough for good education. The School must make the student
think and move forward.
It must be organized in a way where we can change the contents without touching the structure
because these changes conflict with long term and restrictive institutional and legal statements.
A good curriculum must be capable of promoting changes, interactions, opportunities for
good practices, innovation and excellence and never hinder them.
More than a professional diploma the architectural education must provide culture and enable
the student to have autonomy of thinking, to go forward.
This is because the changes in society are more and more frequent and fast. The professional
must be able to answer to different social, economic and cultural environments. In this sense,
it is worth emphasizing the potential of innovative experiences outside the pre - established
legal framework.

Currently, the professional market exceeds the boundaries of space. The economic crisis and
the globalized world open the frontiers for professional performance in a competitive scenario
and of constant mutations. Former education must answer to these contemporary demands
that go beyond the specific qualifications of the discipline.
Hence the curricula must promote flexibility, inter and trans disciplinarity, interaction in
between the different issues of the formation (studio, theory, contents, acting towards the
society, mobility, workshops etc). Formation is not accomplished when fulfilling the strict
census curricular grid.
Then, the proposal in our School was to reinforce integration between the three cycles (pri-
mary, completion and synthesis) crossing the three thematic axis of the project, of theory
and history and of technicalities. For this to be accomplished the segmented departmental
structure would give place to a structure of a board for each cycle, composed by the faculty
body of the three axis. At the end of each cycle the integrated studios are strengthened, where
the competences of the set of the cycle are assessed in the project. In this way, the curricular
grid became leaner and more flexible, offering opportunities for complementary and creative
activities. Interactivity, interdisciplinarity, curricular flexibility and context were prioritized.
At the same time, reorganization of space occupation was made in order to better qualify the
infrastructures and create integrating spaces for the students as well as the administrative-
academic body. It was given special attention to our library. It currently holds one of the most
complete collections in Latin America.
We also intensified the student’s mobility and enlarged national and international academic
interchange (regular mobility with over 20 countries and 120 students per semester both
ways). The exchange of ideas, of students and faculty are paramount in the modern world.
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

The outcomes of the opening of the School’s policies to new practices, to integrated studios and
to interexchange was well noted in the many awards received by our students for the last years.

Tension: Ideal X Possible

The tension between the ideal and the possible contributes to creative solutions and new
The formation in Architecture at FAU/UFRJ has some important limitations. The greatest limita-
tion is the institution in itself. The institutions and the minds change slowly along time. And,
sometimes, the changes that we need to realize are urgent because society and knowledge
evolve in a fast pace.
As it happens in many educational institutions around the world, we still live conflict of inter-
ests between the different social bodies of a School. Part of the faculty and the majority of the
students are willing to build a modern School with quality. Another part of the faculty and the
majority of the employees are against change.
The university’s institutional framework prevents any autonomy in defining the number of
students to be enrolled in a course as well as the profiles and the size of the faculty.
If, in one hand, the university assures resources and infrastructure, in the other, it frames Archi-
tecture in standards, which, many times, they are defined from quality and productivity criteria
from other areas of knowledge. The highly competitive system of the academic environment
blocks the change of this picture.
The legal and institutional frameworks of the Professional boards, defining competences and
content that seek to protect the Architecture professionals, end up inflating the curricula with
too much specific content, which in most cases, is not translated into competence.
Today is the time of transformations in ever increasing rhythm and speed. The university lives
the time of tradition, which it is slow and predictable. It is necessary to know how to power
tradition in the university and in a School, with the size of ours, and use it to renew faculty and
ideas. It also must be valued the richness of our diversities.
It is necessary to know how to optimize tradition in a university and in a School, with the size
as ours, and to use it to favor the potential to renewal of faculty and of new ideas. It must be
valued the richness of our diversities.
Meaning that, the tension between the institutionalization and versatility is one of the main
challenges that we experience when we target education with quality.
A good education in modern world necessarily requires innovation, capacity to give inter-
disciplinary, sustainable and cooperative solutions to our society`s social and environmental
challenges in this world of fast changes, which is the one that we are performing and building.

Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Konstantinos MORAITIS
Vice Head, National Technical University of Athens, School of Architecture, Athens,

Multidisciplinary or Interdisciplinary Collaboration

in Studio Teaching
An introductory crucial question: Does academic teaching have to be subordinated
to professional reality or does it have to transcend it?

It is surely extremely important to correlate academic teaching to social economic and tech-
nological reality, as developed in the cultural environment outside universities. It is surely of
great importance to be able to create extrovert academic tendencies.
However our proposal insists on the exact opposite realization. It insists on the commonplace
remark that academic didactics have not only to do with the transfer of knowledge but, what
is more, with the production of novice knowledge material. In a more specific way this knowl-
edge production has not only to do with architectural design and construction in the “real
world”, outside the Schools of Architecture. It is not even limited to the pure research activity,
to research programs, taking place in the Universities. The central research domain, the very
“core” of knowledge production in Schools of Architecture, identifies with studio teaching itself,
especially during teaching in higher semesters.
Thus our presentation seems to be opposite to the central statement supporting this second
session of our meeting that insists on foreseeing “professional unpredictability”. According
to our opinion academic research seems to be in many ways central for the production
and the reorganization of social knowledge, not because it corresponds to the exact social
reality outside universities, but because it may transcend this reality. Moreover, a number
of tutors in Architectural Schools are still nowadays leading personalities of the profession.
Thereby we have no reason to oppose the common belief that academic knowledge is not
realistically produced; at least not as realistically as experience acquired in the domain of
the immediate social production. Surely this statement is a provocative one - however it
helps us to present in an explicit way our belief that the importance of academic teaching
is exactly this: to be able in many ways to overwhelm, to contradict established reality, by
pointing out new alternatives.
What is more it seems to us that, at least till now, social and political sensitivity is easier to
be produced in academic clusters than outside them. Our central point is that in many ways
academic institutions have not just to feed or to be fed by building industry, though real
estate management and investment policy are of course extremely important. On the con-
trary: Academic teaching ought to point out the equally important validity of critical thought.

Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

The central hypothesis of the presentation: The research validity of Studio Teaching
in the Schools of Architecture

We may now arrive at the first important hypothesis of our presentation. The central research
process in the Schools of Architecture is studio teaching itself. No professional architectural firm
in Greece country, and probably in any other European country, has the chance of experiment-
ing by producing forty or even more alternatives of the same architectural or urban project
in the same time. However studio lessons in the School of Architecture of N.T.U.A. present,
in every semester, such an amount of projects per tutorial team thus offering an impressive
possibility for design comparison.
In this way studio lessons, this is the second important hypothesis of our presentation, are not
only important for students’ education but also for tutors’ education. What we mean is that no
member of a tutorial team, in a School of Architecture, has the same design or compositional
ability after some years of tutorial activity – here we should like to emphasize that we have not
referred to “teaching ability” but to “design or compositional ability”.
The normal result of the constant supervision of studio lessons is what we already know by
experience: the radical amelioration of our architectural judgment. To put it in a less formal man-
ner, after some years of teaching studio lessons we normally have improved as architects; that
means we normally have the possibility to combine, to compose, to structure and restructure
design elements that in many, supplementary or even controversial ways concern different
attitudes of the project in question.
We usually present our students as a central product of our Universities. This is partly true,
because another equally important product of Schools of Architecture are tutors themselves;
not as teaching staff only but also as ameliorated architects that have developed their critical
and compositional ability through continuous studio teaching.

Fig. 1
7th- 8th Semester Design Studio in the School of Architecture of the National Technical University of
Athens: Interdisciplinary collaboration between building design tutors, construction design tutors, and
116 interior space design tutors.
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Reaching a more coherent statement: The research importance of interdisciplinary

collaboration in Studio Teaching

Let us proceed to a third important hypothesis of this presentation that seems to be a con-
clusive statement:
A large number of important transformation issues, tantalizing our design thinking, concern
the impact of other, relative design disciplines, on what we shall refer to as central design topic.
In our own School, the School of Architecture of the National Technical University of Athens
(NTUA), this central design topic refers to building design and what we have just described
as relative design disciplines refer to construction technology design, urban design and land-
scape design.

Fig. 2
8th Semester Design Studio, concerning out-
door public space design. Interdisciplinary
collaboration between outdoor space and land-
scape design tutors, and urban design tutors.

Fig. 3
Urban Design Design Studio of 9th semester: Collaboration between outdoor space and landscape design
tutors, urban design tutors, and building design tutors.
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Fig. 4
From the experience acquired in the Design Studios of the 8th and 9th semester a totally new sense of
urbanity, a totally new sense of urban landscape is produced for both students and tutors.

Our proposal, those last ten years, has to do with interdisciplinary studio teaching, in such a
way that different teaching contributions could participate into design decision-making; not by
offering abstract presentation of conferences or generalized examples but, on the contrary, by
offering equally important, or quasi-equal, concrete design alternatives. In this way, constructive
approach for example may reverse the normal way of confronting the project. Even architectural
representation technology, a common experience to all of us, may reverse our design priorities.
In an explicit way the above-described reversal of the conventional design priorities, is exem-
plified in the way landscape thinking reforms our visualization of every design domain of our
contemporary experience. We usually refer to this contemporary condition with the terms
“epistemic reversal”. 1 Building design and urban design are nowadays possessed by the epis-
temic paradigm of natural forms and natural transformation processes, and in a more specific
way by natural landscape morphology.
Even representational techniques seem to reproduce topological or parametric principles,
relative to simulation of landscape or organic formations. Interdisciplinary relations between
building design and urban design on the one hand, and what is conventionally described as
landscape architecture on the other, seem to completely reactivate design structures.2

A conclusive synopsis

Let us repeat our proposition.

It concerns, first the organization of tutorial teams for the more complicated studio projects of
the higher semesters of the curriculum. Not isolated tutors but team teaching, a proposition
which is, certainly, rather common in many teaching departments. What is more, it concerns
the organization of tutorial teams not according to the similarity of design tendencies and
design topics of specialization between tutors but, on the contrary, according to differences,
I might say supplementary teaching differences, among them.
In addition, I might also remark that though this proposition is of general teaching validity, it
seems to be especially productive during the teaching in higher, more mature semesters of
the curriculum.

Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Fig. 5-7
A comparison between plantation and hard construction schematization for the design of Klathmonos
Square in Athens (tutorial sketches). 8th Semester Design Studio, concerning outdoor public space design.
Interdisciplinary Collaboration between outdoor space and landscape design tutors, and urban design
tutors. 119
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

As a concluding example I shall use the example of the interdisciplinary collaboration between
the domains of urban design, landscape design and architectural design, in our School of
Architecture of the National Technical University of Athens.
I may remark that this collaboration has not only revitalized our way of thinking urbanity,
through the contribution of landscape and environmental sensitivity. In the reverse way, our
experience of building design helped us to teach landscape design to students of a School of
Architecture, according to what we call “Landscape Schematism”; that is to say, according to
composition principles derived from building design. 3

1 The word “epistemic” derives from the word “épistème”, as used by the French philosopher and social
theorist Michel Foucault. Épistème, as introduced by Foucault in his work The Order of Things, Les
mots et les choses, describes the “historical a priori”, that is to say the historical preconditions that
grounds knowledge and its discourses. According to our opinion, contemporary epistemic tendencies
are oriented towards natural paradigms and, moreover towards landscape scientific perception.
2 The images presented concern: Fig.1. and Fig.2.: The student project of C. Gerekos, E. Vasiliou, D.
Ververis, for the Building of the Greek Movie Center of Athens (tutorial team N. Marda, K. Moraitis).
Fig.3.: The student project of the students S. Alisandratou, M. Kladeftira, S. Koufopoulos, for Varvakios
Square of Athens (tutorial team K. Moraitis, E. Chaniotou). Fig.4.: Student project for the urban design
intervention in the territory of Plato’s Academy in Athens (tutorial team D. Isaias, E. Chaniotou, V.
Karvoutzi, and K. Moraitis). Fig.5.: C. Aristodimou’s diploma project, for the reactivation of the openair
public spaces of Athens (tutorial team K. Moraitis, S. Stavridis). The tutorial sketches Fig.6., Fig.7., Fig.8.,
by prof. K. Moraitis.
3 See K. Moraitis: "The non-verbal Expression of Building Design and its Teaching Importance for the relative
Fields of Urban Design and Landscape Design", in C. Spiridonidis and M. Voyatzaki (editors): Improving
Learning Quality in Architectural Education Environments - EAAE publ., Thessaloniki, 2013, pages 91-99.

Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Frederick COOPER
Dean, Pontificial Catholic University of Peru, Faculty of Architecture, Lima, Peru

The text below has been transcribed and edited by the editors to ensure flow and coherence of the
entrie book, as there was no response by the presenter to provide his original text within the deadline.

I have chosen to comment on the subject of this session by extracting a few parts of the
annunciation that has been given to me. As a general intro I could say something that I have
said before but we have a tendency to mend since we find in the current way architecture ahs
been taught to confront changes all around us but by doing this we risk overlooking things
that affect ourselves. We are judging ourselves in the way we operate as teachers or teach-
ing authorities. On the other hand we have no ample overview as to what the problem is
altogether. At least, I want to make a since attempt: the need for us to question ourselves and
the other to challenge the whole issue of change from a much wider perspective and not so
much from particular or incidental aspects. The architectural educational system is structured
upon the hypothesis that the profile of graduates generated nowadays will stay valid. Schools
of architecture should not pretend to generate, albeit slightly, academic profiles of graduates.
In teaching architecture, the main concern should be to provide students with well-trained
professors that may demandingly expose them to the essence of our profession which is the
artistic quest to achieve built form through structure and construction. The masterly command
of architectural competence surely requires the teachers to be aware that the condition of
excellence or beauty through built form can only be attained through a broad and talented
achievement of an intellectual, artistic and ethical maturity that may feed qualitatively any
approach to the experience of producing built form through a masterly command of the spe-
cific technological and programmatic ingredients that must be assembled in order to produce
studio projects or town planning propositions.
Current architectural education has, by and large, subsided into the gluttony of massification
and consumerism by disdaining the importance of excellence as a crucial part of its profes-
sional consequence. We have drifted into been more concerned with providing a civilization
that has become fiercely addicted to the hedonistic expectations with those competences that
may satisfy its vicious quests for the ephemeral satisfaction than in holding understanding as
a fundamental provider of one of the basic components of civilized coexistence. In the recent
past, we are experiencing radical changes in the way we think, conceive, create and practice
architecture with equally radical changes in the building industry, the construction methods,
the real estate management and the investment in the field of the built environment. Hasn’t
that always happened? Hasn’t it always been the case? Didn’t the Romans transform Greek
Classical architecture to meet their own social and technological changes? Didn’t the same
experience bring about Gothic architecture or that of the Renaissance, Baroque, Neoclassical,
Eclectic or our own Modern times? These radical changes were enacted almost seamlessly by
persisting in pursuing respect for the conditions of excellence; an attitude that was enacted
through a constant respect for the importance of the masterly training of architects that evolved
through the pursuit of a fluent innovation of form as a consequence of a continuous need to
reappraise their choice of shape or form through materials, innovation of structure and the 121
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

relevance of essential complementary components such as light, proportions, efficiency and

cost amongst others.
Thus, responding to the ever-changing implications of social or technological change. What
I mean to say is that in the evolution from one period to another civilization has had not to
organize itself to see how we aid alien students and alien academics to change from one
phase to another. Respect has to supported, to be cared for so that the architectural thinking
and the architectural profession itself brings about the development of the change. Demands
for a new way of thinking architectural design for new knowledge, skills and competences
questioning those that are actually ensured by our institutions. This can only be achieved
through the enactment of an adequate way of persisting in providing architectural appren-
tices with exposure to the current requirements of social and technological conditions under
very broad and exerting pedagogical demands. This requires both a very close scrutiny of
the capacity and dedication of teachers as well as a compromise of students which I would
rather refer to as apprentices. We increasingly feel unable to predict the future profile of the
architect. We can only provide adequate conditions so that the pursuit of excellence or again
beauty through built form may carry on achieving ways of evolution that may respond to
the changing requirements of society or civilization. How can we organize architectural edu-
cation in this new context of unpredictability? Confronting ourselves with the contribution
architectural education is making towards the main issue it is faced with, which is a growing
irrelevance of built form both privately and publicly in terms of architectural training, this nowa-
days generally means ignoring that excellence has to be upheld in the specific areas where it
requires relentless attention. The qualifications of professors are a severely critical reflection
of the incidence of massification in studio and research work, the decline of the importance
of humanistic knowledge as a vital simulator of architectural creativity and intelligence. These
four factors are absolutely indispensible components in any time and especially in ours so that
we can uphold the substantial importance of studio work if it is to be kept. In order to fulfill
these expectations, I unfortunately believe that we have to sincerely judge to what extent the
decline of masterly education, mainly that which is conducted through studio tutorials is one
cause of our waywardness regarding our situation within a fast-changing global condition.
I am concerned with the pertinence of the studio unit as a space where the training of archi-
tects through the core of the project can hold its ground in a massified and more complex
and expanded situation. We have carried on abusing a tutorial system of the studio unit by
ignoring that its essence, the constant intercourse between student and tutor in an exchange
that could encompass a broad and open technological and humanistic concern. Insofar as a
possibility of organized architectural teaching may adjust to our fast-changing conditions, I
believe, it is essential that we acknowledge our disregard for a compromised and sincere evalu-
ation of our pedagogical resources and on the need to reflect the prevalence of the potential
of the masterly tutorial training carried out on the basis of the project and the observance of
excellence as an essential condition for its validity. We talk about studio work, we talk about
the project as studio work and we then analyse and try and judge how we can improve that,
and I think that most of the ways that are suggested in this meeting and other meetings like
that are very common for all of us. But we really do not dare face the fact that perhaps one
of the main defiances of the case is that by having increased in such a way by having mas-
sive fight, the demand for architectural education and by having the word grown financially
122 and materially in such a way, a system which started out from a masterly procedure, I mean
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

a teacher dealing with the student cannot be simply enlarged infinitely. So, perhaps we have
to question the relevance of studio work. Most of those represented here, I suppose, head
institutions that are fairly small or average. But we all know that in our countries the problem
mainly resides where institutions have thousands of students. The University of Buenos Aires
has 15 000 students in Architecture. In Lima we have 28 schools of architecture and most of
them have 4000 students. It does not matter who teaches those studios. They just hire any
architect who is in need of a job, which nowadays is pretty easy to go about. So, I think this is
an area where a substantial part of the problem resides. We still take for granted that studio
education and the convergence of all other forms of knowledge into the project which is done
in studio education should work all right if we make certain corrections. I think that the major
change we are all experiencing right now makes the possibility of carrying on as if nothing
happened rather dubious.

Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Associate Dean, North Carolina State University College of Design, Raleigh, USA

The text below has been transcribed and edited by the editors to ensure flow and coherence of
the entrie book, as there was no response by the presenter to provide his original text within the

First, in order to make my comments useful, I would like to give you a bit of context. I am a
professor and my training is in the department of landscape architecture and landscape plan-
ning. I am the associate dean of graduate international studies at the college of Design of the
North Carolina State University and the Director of the PhD Design Programme. My College is
a College of Design, an interdisciplinary college. We have architecture, landscape architecture
but also graphic design, industrial design, art and design which includes media, digital anima-
tion, design study and an merging programme in fashion. So, as a college of design is fairly
diverse. I also want to complement the organizers of this conference for their idea to deal with
the topic of change and the arte of change. I think this is something that is really important. It
is something we tend to ignore sometimes trying to be able to respond more effectively. We
are all trying to prepare our students to a future that we cannot see clearly and they cannot
see clearly and anything that we can do to move in that direction is a benefit. The way to make
my comment useful would be to describe two things. First of all, a way of thinking design
education that takes into account the element of time and the uncertainty brought about by
change. Secondly to describe what we are doing in our own college to try to deal with what
we see as an emerging need which in many ways is a direct expression of the acceleration
of the degree of change and some of the efforts we are trying to make in order to fulfill that
need. When we think about design education, I find it useful to think of the act of preparing
our students for three different periods of their life and their career; there is a period of entry,
there is a period of advancement and a period of leadership.
At my own institution, I can fairly say that we do fairly well at preparing students for entry.
Those developing in them the willingness to work hard, to be productive, developing a sound
base of knowledge of their discipline, developing strong and diverse technical capabilities, so
at least they have the background to continue to learn as new technologies become available.
When we move to the period of advancement, we have made steps in addressing that, we are
talking about a different skills set building upon the skills set they already have; skills that are
related mostly to communication, collaboration and flexibility. We tried to do a number of
things to build those skills in our students. We have a combined studio where all disciplines
take courses in the studio together which is very useful and one of the best results of that
is that they develop colleagues and become friends with people in all the disciplines. They
participate in each other’s reviews and they end up sharing their own design insights and col-
laborate later on as professionals. In many ways our first year experience is positive not so much
in what we teach them but in the friendships and the connections they make themselves. The
other thing we do is that our students are allowed to do swing studios, which means that in
124 the advanced part of their carrier they can take studios in another one of the disciplines. That
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

already builds connections they’ve already made. We also have collaborative studios, commu-
nity engagement, getting the students to work with the community, to see things differently,
to talk and communicate effectively. So, it is not just about talking among themselves but also
about communicating and presenting their ideas so that everyone can understand. Finally, we
require students to study abroad. A lot of that has to do with the necessity we see in having
them broadening their abilities to understand other cultures, other places and to see things
fresh. We even have a PhD programme which is interdisciplinary. This bridges to the third one
which is the one of leadership. I do not think we do this very well.
We are working on trying to do it better but we do not necessarily have the answer. There is a
counterargument here. We could say that leadership is something that is going to happen in a
person’s career 10-15-20 years after they graduate. So what we as educators have to deal with?
Some people will become leaders, some won’t and that’s how the world works. As the rate of
change is accelerating and the rate we have to deal with as designers at our later path of our
career there is a role of HE we are not fulfilling right now. This new need it really relates to the
need that advanced professionals to be able to somehow get involved in rigorous detail study
to build bodies of knowledge relating to new and emerging trends that they see they need to
respond to in order to be leaders. In some ways HE ahs responded to this advanced need with
PhD programmes. Over the last 20 years there is a number of PhD programmes. Our own has
been around for 11 years. But this is not solving the problem. 95% of our people that graduate
from our PhD programme go to academia and become professors and contribute in that way.
What I ma talking about is the need to contribute to new model in HE that provides an intensive,
flexible educational experience from mid career and senior professional. The characteristics of
this new model are that it ahs to be individually focused because at that point of their career
they have to work individually with experts. It has to focus on the emerging issues of practice.
These are the issues we do not know they already exist, but will exist. We are going to have
to make it available and maybe the way to do that is to utilize the tolls now available to us in
the form of remote technologies and availability at this stage means to be able to participate
in intense studies and at the same time to continue to anticipate in your academic practice.
Specifically we design for individuals that go into an in-depth exploration of emerging design
issues that they see directly linked to their practice and what they need to have to be produc-
tive leaders. In our College, we have a proposal right now, which is considered by our upper
administration to create a new degree specifically focused on this. It is being very well received.
I don’t think we could have done this in the past without the remote learning technologies
that are now available to us. It is possible for us now and if we really want to deal with change
and prepare our people to want to deal with change we have to face one reality about is that
we do not know what the world will look like in twenty years. There has to be mechanisms to
provide a base of education for people to return to develop their skills further and this goes
beyond what we see currently as continuing education, which is attending lectures every so
often. That is a reasonable thing but this is an in-depth study at an advanced professional level
and directly contribute that knowledge to practice.

Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Head of Institute of Architecture and Planning, University of Lichtenstein, Vaduz,

The text below has been transcribed and edited by the editors to ensure flow and coherence of the
entrie book, as there was no response by the presenter to provide his original text within the deadline.

I am a practicing and teaching architect since more than thirty years already and whatever
happens over these thirty years it always had to do with change. There has never been some-
thing constant. Whatever we deal with all the time is change and for that we need to prepare
the students is to deal with change especially because we figure out that changes are coming
faster and faster. Lots of methods have come up, dealing with architecture; working methods,
representation methods, thinking processes and a practicing architect cannot keep up with
these methods any more because the new computer programme is already one step ahead
and you do not find the time to go along with it. It is left to the new generation to fulfill the
task put on the table. Your cannot do it because you have to do something else. You have to
think about changes taking place and they take place in society. And this is the challenge we
are dealing with; been prepared for the next step to deal with the present, to deal with the
now, to understand the now. The young generation, our students, deal with the now because
they live in the now but they do not realize as they do it very spontaneous and natural. For
them it is their everydayness. We, on the other hand, are either one step ahead or one step
behind. So to appreciate what is really going on is very difficult and if somebody is asking to
be ahead this is the toughest question because being on time with all these changes is already
tough enough. If we understand what is going on at the moment I think we are already very
far. So, being a generalist as an architect I think is a good thing. I was reading a sentence about
specialism in any field. It wa saying that a person, a specialist tknows a lot about a little and if
that continues to happen then at the very end a specialist knows everything about nothing.
The architect has a chance not to be this specialist, he has to have the chance to be a gerelaist
and to be a partner to speak to. But I figure that architects are recently more of what they are
asked. They are asked about what is going on in this world. They are asked about their opinions
because their state of mind and position is becoming more crucial. They deal with a new social
relevance. They are not just the inventors of this and that and anything they become partners of
politicians. We might be the ones who are the interpreters; the ones that who can translate and
I think this is the big chance. Whatever we have to embrace is change. So if we have something
changing it is the curriculum, it is our everyday life and it is also maybe an elective in our studios
in our curriculum that is about change. I think this is the big chance that we could deal with.

Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching


Dag Boutsen (Chair)

Dean of Catholic University of Leuven, Faculty of Architecture, Ghent, Belgium
Before opening the floor to questions, I thought it would be interesting to go a little deeper
into some of the things that have been mentioned here. Allow me to summarise quickly
what the six people have said about change in general, and about leadership and teaching
in particular. Anne-Mette started with a vision of a new Aarhus architectural school where
education could be shaped across scales, across previous units, trying to create a state of mind
within the school and especially in students. I think this is a very nice model for you, which is
also visualised on the screen. Denise gave a very interesting short talk about Rio and about
the large, even gigantic, numbers of institutional kinds of education; she talked about these
new formations which are appearing, trying to look at things from a new perspective into
complexity. Konstantinos talked about tutorial teams, also across scale and across disciplines.
In that sense, it was a little related to what Anne-Mette was saying. Then we had Frederick,
questioning the relevance of studio work, a very principled question, trying to persuade us,
everybody here, to talk more about themselves. Art also talked about a new model for pro-
fessionals, trying to think about what professionals in this changing world, in leadership or
in teaching, should do and should be, and how they can achieve this. Hugo gave a short, but
very interesting plea to embrace change.
If I can summarise this, therefore, we have had six presentations here from people saying more
or less the same thing and trying to dream beyond the reality of today, trying to think of how
we could embrace this change in the future. They have been trying to propose, in the form
of questions, or in utopian things, or through little schemes, dreams to try and realise this.
In a discussion with Anne-Mette, we were trying to understand why, we, teachers do not do
all this, and what it is that is blocking us. Where are the boundaries, where are the obstacles?
What, if we agree generally on this concept of change, is stopping us and why? One of the
questions I myself have, before passing on first to Anne-Mette, and then the panel, is that one
of the obstacles I see is that there is a kind of gap between education and research. In this way,
since the title of this afternoon’s session was ‘Academic Leadership and Teaching’, then I fail to
see why we do not focus enough on the kind of new research – or, for instance, PhDs – that
embraces all the things we have been saying. Why is there not a kind of school that specialises
in PhDs which train professionals for both leadership and teaching, and which brings in this
wonderful expertise from the practice of being architects or designers and so forth into the
aspects which we have just been discussing? Why is it that the PhD or research world has
never been discussed in very close relationship to all the things we have been saying here
this afternoon? Talking about the obstacles, let me ask Anne-Mette to go a little deeper into
the schemes which she has shown from the Aarhus school and explain a little more about
what is happening today; and also to explain what is not working in her scheme, which looks
fantastic, but that is of course a theoretical scheme, and what could be improved or where
it is still hindered.

Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Anne-Mette Boye, Denmark

That is quite a question you have asked! I will answer each point one at a time. First of all,
addressing the gap between education, teaching and research, it is something that we are
trying to discuss quite frequently and in different ways. This is because we believe that research
can obviously contribute to a higher level of teaching. What we are trying to do is that when
we organise platforms, or rather, when the platforms organise themselves, they are composed
of both people who are in research and people who are in teaching.
At the School of Architecture, most researchers teach as well; there are not many who are just
researchers. Most people who teach also have some time for development. In that sense, we
are trying to carry out this transition between research and teaching within the one person.
What are the obstacles? It is said that the devil is always in the detail, so let me explain what
happens when a plan is made for the next year’s teaching. There are quite a number of tasks,
which have to be fulfilled and not all of these tasks are connected with the current research.
This means that we have to place people in teaching roles where we cannot always ensure
that the subject of teaching is that same as the subject of research. Because of this, we do not
always capture all the research; what we have tried to do as well is to have shorter courses, called
academic optics, where we try to bring in some of the research for a short period of time. This
is done on the Bachelor programme, which means that the Bachelor students are exposed to
some of the research being done within the school, which is not focused on methods or tools.
It is quite a difficult task, however.
There is another thing, too. It is well known that there exists this programme of the PhD which
is just in the process of starting, where we are working with a programme of PhD students who
are coming from practice and they are actually doing the PhD in practice. It is a reflection of their
own practice. How that is going to be included in the teaching has not yet been defined, but it
will be very interesting to see how this can be done. Something else currently being discussed,
although it is still on the drawing board – is to prolong the PhD, so it is not three years, but four
years, so the students have more teaching. We are thinking of doing this, not only because we
find the students benefit from the teachers, we are also doing it because we can see that the
PhD students working with the Master’s students or on the Bachelor’s programme benefit from
this: they get the chance to work with their subject, with the students and this feeds back into
their own projects. There is a very fertile collaboration, which comes from doing this. Those
are my comments on the gap between research and education.
While I do not wish to take up too much time, I would like to say that I think some of the key
obstacles in making this change to go from single disciplines and into more cross-discipline
work is really a matter of taking it from the society of disciplines into the society of projects. It is
a completely new way of understanding how to work with issues. Instead of having a discipline,
you state a challenge and do a project on it. When we talk about these things in this way, it is
also a question of identity, of the identity of the teachers, and it is also a question of what was
said in the first of this morning’s presentations: where are we supposed to be innovative, and
where are we supposed to conserve things? I would say that tradition and this new aspect is
one of the gaps, or one of the obstacles.

Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Dag Boutsen, Belgium

Let us continue with this topic. Art said that 95% of the PhD students go into academia, so he
was actually pleading for the need for advanced professionals in a new way and finding new
mechanisms. I would like to ask him: when you hear about this new way, what do you think
about it? In your opinion, what is actually hindering this at Raleigh?

Art Rice, USA

There are certain things that always block you that are inherent in your own environment. In
general, however, I think that we are in a very research-intensive university; therefore our PhD
programme really has to be focused on pure research and the development of new knowledge.
It cannot be focused on, for example, advancing professional skills or leadership skills; it has a
whole different criteria to be examined. We require everyone coming into our PhD programme
to have a Master’s in a design discipline. One of the problems we face in our PhD programme
is in many ways that of re-teaching or unlearning some of the designers’ tendencies in the PhD
programme. As designers, we come up with an idea and implement it and prove ourselves
right. As a researcher, you try to prove yourself wrong and you test your ideas rigorously. That
change in mindset is, I think, one of the most difficult things we do in our PhD programme.
The programme I was talking about and that we are in the process of developing, would not
attempt to implement that change: it would attempt to ask someone to develop more in-depth
knowledge in an area of expertise that they see as emerging in their disciplines. It is designed
to even include certain components in the programme that would focus on leadership and
communication skills in ethics as a part of that programme. It does not work for us to do this at
the Master’s level either, so there is a problem: we have the PhD which has certain requirements
and the Master’s has to go through accreditation. Accreditation requires a number of things to
be covered and a curriculum cannot just be improved by adding more: at some point there is
a breaking point. For us, we are saying that we want to keep our PhD as a pure research PhD;
our Master’s programme we want to keep as a technical, accredited design programme with
all the basic skills necessary. This middle degree would allow us to step out of the questions
of accreditation but still give us the freedom to develop a higher level of professional skills

Denise Pinheiro Machado, Brazil

There is a need for discussion and what you say is interesting because in our case we cannot
say the PhD system is really an obstacle. In our school, we have another system. In Brazil, we
have a highly developed PhD programme and we can say what Art Rice said: almost 90% of
people who receive their PhD return to school, not necessarily ours, but they go on to be
teachers. I will say what is interesting about this and what the problem is with it. The problem
is not the research and the PhD because this usually makes the school better because we are
required to undertake teaching, research and what we call extension, which means giving
something to society.
We have a very well-organised system in Brazil whereby from the beginning of their training
and education, you involve the students in research groups. We therefore have this kind of
articulation between students from the beginning of their architectural training to the last
year of the PhD. We are not in the Bologna system, so we have five years for architecture, 129
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

two years for a Master’s in Science and four years for a PhD. Usually, although not always, but
the students do one straight after the other. It is therefore a different system from Bologna. I
can say that research in Brazil in the public universities is a very enriching practice and in our
school in particular, it is very clear that the teachers who are involved in research have better
conditions to think within the school.
The problem for us, and an obstacle to making changes and changing direction and so forth,
is the way we receive the teacher and the way we receive the students. Because of the post
graduation system, which is very strong in Brazil, when we ask for a teacher, we are obliged
by the university to ensure that this teacher has a PhD. In the School of Architecture, this is a
problem. We have old teachers who are good architects but who are retiring. The new ones
are very good for the school because they think about things and they change things, but
sometimes they have little practice experience because we are obliged to receive teachers
with PhDs. This is the problem with the system: the system is made for everybody, like many
things in Brazil. It is a huge country and also a very different one amongst the various regions,
but it is very centralised in federal government, so we have systems and laws, which apply
to everybody. It is the same in science. This I think is not true only in Brazil, but everywhere.
The way things function does not apply to architecture especially, it applies to other disciplines
where work takes place in laboratories; it is another way of including and doing research.
Yet we try to adapt, to take advantage of the system however we can, but sometimes it is an
obstacle; this is not because of research, but because we are required to have teachers who
have PhDs. In the end, we began to have another kind of postgraduate diploma, which is the
professional Master’s. This is very interesting in architecture because it allows for a person’s
training to be the professional field but during their training, that person is in touch with
research. S/he is not asked to do research but to understand how to deal with research, how
to solve problems, how to stay in touch with what is going on and so forth. This makes for a
very interesting training programme.

Dag Boutsen, Belgium

As regards change, we know that we live in a world where education has changed from two
words – architectural practitioner – into, thanks to Bologna, which has just been mentioned,
a kind of learning in the world, or the discipline of architecture. That means, whether we like
it or not, that research is very important, and that education should, or could, be improved. I
would therefore like to ask Frederick: if you say that we should question the relevance of studio
work, how do you relate that to, or match that with this academic paradigm?

Frederick Cooper, Peru

I don’t question the relevance of studio work, but I think that we must face reality. We have too
many students and we just solve studio needs, particularly in most public universities, by hiring
available architects. On the other hand, we know that architectural training through project
work in a studio comes from the masterly relationship between a teacher and an individual,
yet as we all know, that hardly ever happens now. Normally, a teacher addresses a large group
of students and very seldom has personal contact. My concern is that we are talking about
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

change, yet somehow we have to face how we are going to cope with change there, which is
already in the studio. This is simply being ignored.
On the other hand, I am also very dubious about all this PhD business. I think that an architect
is made in studio life. Something was mentioned which I think is very true, which is that, at your
university, out of 25 PhD graduates, only 2 went into practice and did architecture and actually
confronted built form. I think we have to make up our minds on this: should we mainly gear
our schools to provide academic resources for our own universities, which is happening in all
other specialities? In the Schools of Literature now – in the United States and in Europe – stu-
dents study literature mainly to become professors of literature, but they do not write books,
that is, books about real life. They write books about philology or other specialised subjects.
A PhD would be fine if a very passionate architect who has really plunged into the work of
creative design or town planning design and has come up with new ideas, could be awarded
a PhD because he is doing architectural work, that is, he is not doing mainly bibliographical
or intellectual research. Unfortunately, we still regard the idea of a PhD as something, which
has to be done sitting at a desk for five years, looking in books and searching for evidence in
libraries. I feel that I am a practising architect; I have always taught architecture, but I am also
an architect. Yet I think that most people whom we admire have never done a PhD. Alvaro Siza
never acquired a PhD; neither did Richard Meier. I could think of 200 architects whom we all
follow who had no interest in PhDs.

Konstantinos Moraitis, Greece

I would like to say that in our school what happens is exactly the opposite of that in Peru. That
is to say, up until recently, we had a very small number of students per tutor. This means it was
possible to have very close contact with the students in the studio lessons. At the same time,
however, I can say that we are not an intensive research school. That is why I have spoken about
studio lessons as the research goal of our teaching. In this way, the teaching space where a
professor, or tutor, or educator was able to work with design skills was precisely in those inte-
grated studio lessons. Thus there was an immediate connection between studio lessons and
postgraduate studies: we have a close cycle between studio lessons and postgraduate studies.
For example, landscape design lessons were introduced into graduate studies after they were
introduced at postgraduate level. The problem now is that there is strong opposition from
professionals against research in universities. This means they feel that during the current crisis
conditions, the research in universities may cut off a part of their professional profit. There is a
great political problem now, but I hope that after some years, we will begin again to reorganise
our research, not only at the level of postgraduate and PhD studies, including studio teaching,
but also in the wider scheme of research.

Hugo Dworzak, Liechtenstein

There is one thing that comes to my mind and I think this is something that we as architects
and as teachers of architecture have to be aware of: it is that most of our students can easily
do something very different from being architects. Some have talents that do not fit with
architecture as much as these students think they do. One very big task in changing educa-
Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

tion in architecture is that of finding out what the talents of the students are. Maybe they can
be helpful to architecture in doing something, which is connected to the field of architecture.
I think we often push someone too much to become a specialist, to be an architect, regard-
less of whether he is a builder or a thinker. There are so many different possibilities, so many
worthwhile things that a student may do instead of just having this one goal of becoming a
professional architect.

Dag Boutsen, Belgium

Let me open the discussion up to comments from the floor.

Neslihan Dostoglu, Turkey

I have been here since this morning and, especially in this last session, there have been six
academicians from six different countries; I was thinking about the question of internation-
alisation of teaching and research in architecture versus identity. It seems that everybody
must question this in their own schools. My question is related to working on the fringes of
the architectural profession, which Norman Millar and Ted Landsmark mentioned this morn-
ing. It is a shame they are not here, as I wanted to ask a question about this and for them to
elaborate more on this issue, especially as Hugo just mentioned something similar about it.
In the United States, I believe that now, even in the NAAB, this concept of working on the
fringes of architecture has been put into one of the statements. I would like to ask Art Rice in
particular about this and whether this has been considered at your school. You talked about
three different levels: introduction, elaboration and leadership. Have you considered this idea
of fringes in architecture?

Art Rice, USA

I really appreciate Hugo’s comments. I do not think they are fringes, I think they are other
parts of architecture. This is something we absolutely need to encourage: not everyone will
practise a profession as we see it today. The profession is going to change and what we
sometimes think of as the fringes may eventually become more central to the profession. I
think I saw this particularly clearly at my own university and in my country during our most
recent recession. We went from a period where offices were clamouring for our students and
one year later, students had no jobs. It was that simple. But for some of our best and most
talented students, I would say it was to their advantage that they did not get offered a clas-
sical job. It means that they have gone off and redefined what they are doing, taking their
skills and their way of thinking about problems; they are now making significant money and
having a lot of fun doing things which might be considered the fringes of architecture, yet
which are also very important to society. Here I have one person in mind as well as a number
of others. I think we are training our students to be very good at a lot of things; indeed, they
can be very good at a lot of things. A lot of them will probably apply it in the traditional way,
but frequently, the most creative and I think the people who have the most impact on society
are the less traditional ones.

Session 2 Managing Change: Academic Leadership and Teaching

Dag Boutsen, Belgium

For me, the main obstacle to research, especially in Europe, is European bureaucracy. This
bureaucracy does not understand us, and ignores our wishes to compare research through
design with pure research. This is what our schools in Europe – ETH in Zurich, and others – are
trying to do. This is because it is a particular speciality of our profession that design is in fact
serious research. There is now just one possibility, even for the academics: to go to the PhD
programme, which is out of that scheme, and we are therefore losing people who should be
good professors for practice, but they do not have a chance to go on such a programme which
would be supported financially by an organisation. As a result, we find that in Europe, half of
the schools are without professors with any professional skills, only academic ones. This is one
side. On the other hand, there are very many young people, good professionals, who should go
on such a PhD programme, or on a postgraduate programme, but the government – or rather,
the bureaucrats in Brussels – say that this is a question for the profession, for architectural
associations, to do the professional training. For me, this is not true, because if we said that
research through design is the same as, for example, historical research, we are not equalised.

Pierre von Meiss, Switzerland

To some extent, I will follow on from the preceding statement. My own statement will be a
little blunt. I observe that, regarding the PhD research being done in the few schools of which I
know, it is in fact in 10% of the cases of the PhDs, an enrichment. The other 90% are doing PhDs
for different reasons to that of research itself. They want to get their PhD, because they want
to teach, or because they want to obtain a higher position somewhere. I therefore think that
we – and here I mean Europe – lost enormously, in terms of the quality of new architectural
architects being nominated professors because they require the PhD.
I am sorry to say this, but the best architects do not have a PhD, so we have to take the second-
rate architects. There I fully agree with what Frederick also pointed out; I would say that as
architects, architectural teachers, architectural faculties within the great mother university, we
did not defend our proper identity correctly. We accepted what may be right for a chemist or for
a pharmacologist to be applied to us. We should never have accepted this! I remember, in my
university at the same time that I was nominated professor, there was another nominated. He
was a good professor, who had neither a PhD, nor a Master’s or Bachelor’s, or any other similar
diploma: he had only a certificate as an architectural draughtsman and he was nominated as
a professor. It was because he had something to say. I think we should become a little more
generous in our recruitment.

Dag Boutsen, Belgium

Here I would like to bring this session to a close. I think it is well known that within the EAAE,
EHNSA have been working, especially within the last three years, on trying to make some
very beautiful definitions of what research in architecture could be. There is the charter and
so forth. I suggest that maybe at our next meeting, the discussion regarding the implementa-
tion of this thing called “academisation” into education is something to be continued. That is
what I feel here.
Session 3
Managing Change:
Potential Roles and Professional
Activities for Architects
Financial crises caused an average unemployment rate 25% for archi-
tects. In some countries this percentage is significantly higher as these
crises caused an overall significant reduction of the activities in the con-
struction sector. In this context, architects are forced to look for other
professional activities and to redefine their presence, position and respon-
sibility. Schools of architecture can certainly contribute to the need of
expanding the existing spectrum of professional activities of the archi-
tects, by assuring knowledge, skills and competences which will render
them more flexible, responsive, adaptive in the international financial
and social dynamics.
What are the possible directions in which the professional activities of
the architect could be expanded?
How adequately do schools detect the trends and the demands of the
How would their autonomy as academic institutions not be an obstacle
to their sensitivity to change?
What could be the academic initiatives that would enable Schools to
cope with change?
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Michael Monti, Washington, USA

Introductory panel:
Spyros Amourgis, Athens, Greece
Cecilie Andersson, Bergen, Norway
Sally Stewart, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Maria de Fatima Fernandes, Porto, Portugal
Peter Gabrijelčič, Lublijana, Slovenia

Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Michael MONTI
Executive Director, Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Washington, USA

There are six people up here; I will just make some introductory remarks. We are continuing
with the theme of managing change. It is noted in the programme that there is an average
unemployment of 25% among architects. Because of this, architects and architecture school
graduates must look for other activities and opportunities for careers. Some of these things will
end up being permanent for these architects and graduates, some of them will be temporary.
This discussion involves what architecture schools can do to prepare students for new pro-
fessional opportunities and also to head off some budget constraints that are imposed from
beyond them. Maybe we should follow Epictetus’s wisdom about worrying only about the
things you can control because sometimes budgets are dictated to you from beyond. There
may also be – if you live in the United States at least – budget constraints that come from pos-
sible reductions in enrolment. My introductory remarks are going to show some data that we
have in the United States about architecture school enrolment. I think this is a big concern for
us; since 2008 the concern has been that if word gets out that the architectural profession is
less than optimal, when it comes to opportunity for careers and getting a job with your degree,
then that will drive students away. In his presentation yesterday, Norman Millar made reference
to some bad press that we, the architecture profession, received in the United States. It said
that studies show that you need a degree, particularly in a profession, in order to get a good
wage after graduation. But if you do that, the stories said, do not go into architecture. The New
York Times and the Washington Post both said those things out loud.
Here are some things that we think we know at ACSA and NAAB in the United States. Student
enrolment is down since 2008 by approximately 8% in professional degree programmes. (Fig-
ure 1) Enrolment in professional and pre-professional is basically flat. By pre-professional I
mean 4-year undergraduate programmes which are essentially an undergraduate major in
architecture, not a professional degree accredited by NAAB, but a first step if someone wants
to get a Masters in architecture.

Fig. 1
Total student enrolment in architecture degree programs in the United States, according to National
Architectural Accrediting Board statistics. 137
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

The next chart splits it out by degrees. The BArch has experienced something of a drop.
Some of this has to do with the fact that many BArch programmes in the US have converted
to MArch programmes. That accounts somewhat for keeping the MArch levels flat. If it were
not for the conversion of BArch to MArch degrees, enrolment at Masters degree programmes
would show a bigger drop.

Fig. 2
Enrolment trends by degree program in the United States, according to National Architectural Accredit-
ing Board statistics.

The statistics shown in the last two slides are collected by the National Architectural Accredit-
ing Board from schools every year. This survey has almost a 100% response rate from schools,
which makes it reliable data. Every year ACSA surveys members to ask them about the status
of their enrolment, their applications and their budgets. I will quickly run through some of
our most recent survey, which was from last fall (2012), making it about a year old. There is
an even mix of growth and reduction in programme enrolments. Last year, around a third of
schools who responded to our survey had low enrolment overall; undergraduate programmes
had the highest percentage of decreases, which includes the pre-professional and the BArch
programmes. Post-professional degree programmes had the highest percentage of schools
seeing growth in enrolment. These are graduate programmes that are beyond the Master of

There is a similar story, maybe even slightly worse, for applications. More programmes were
seeing lower application levels than the previous year. This is again particularly true at the
undergraduate level. 55% of four-year undergraduate majors saw a drop in applications, 53%
of Bachelor of Architecture programmes. Post-professional degree programmes saw greater
increases. Nearly two-thirds of those programmes reported an increase in applications while
only about 40% of those reported an increase in enrolment. Just like for architecture firms
getting inquiries, more and more people are interested in graduate school, perhaps as an
option when there are not as many jobs.

Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Fig. 3
Enrollment changes for 2012-13 academic year in U.S. degree programs, according to Association of
Collegiate Schools of Architecture survey.

Fig. 4.
Applications changes for 2012-13 academic year in U.S. degree programs, according to Association of
Collegiate Schools of Architecture survey.

Those are the things we think we know in the United States. Here are a couple of things we
merely think. We are thinking more about where students will be coming from. Community 139
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

colleges are growing; by community colleges we mean colleges and universities that offer
two-year associate degree programmes. In a sense, these are pre-pre-professional. They form
a supply of students that can transfer into undergraduate programmes or can ultimately end
up in the architecture profession at lower levels. There is more outreach – I think this will be
discussed more by the panel a little later – to try and influence the early supply of architecture
students. Yet the number of architecture schools actually continues to grow.
This chart from NAAB shows that by 2020, there will be ten more additional architecture schools.
NAAB is continuing to get inquiries and applications for candidacy for accreditation in schools.
The question that is being discussed in ACSA and in the profession in the US is, what does this
mean for all the schools? Competition for students will extend beyond one’s region; competi-
tion for students is global. This is particularly true in the private schools, but it is becoming
increasingly important for public schools as well. On the positive side, it could be said that
this means extending opportunities for faculty. With more schools, there may be more jobs
and perhaps there will be greater visibility for the profession as a whole. Some schools may
not see this as necessarily a good thing, but I am not so sure.

Fig. 5
Project architecture program growth in the United States, according to National Architectural Accredit-
ing Board.

Finally, I would like to make some comments about architecture budgets. If opportunities for
careers are changing, architecture schools need to evolve. I think that is what will be discussed
by the panel. From a school’s perspective, we need to be concerned about architecture pro-
gramme budget changes. Since 2008, the concern has been that programme budgets are going
to be cut and programmes will have to do more with less. This is what has been discussed in
Chania over the years. What we are finding is a mix. We are not certain why, but for almost
30% of programmes from last year to this year, from 2011-12 to 2012-13, their budgets did not
change appreciably. 44% had an increase, 27% had a decrease. Therefore, at the same time
that architecture budgets are changing, enrolments seem to be a little flat. This is the puzzling
statistic for us and we are trying to understand more.
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Fig. 6
Changes in US architecture programme budgets, according to Association of Collegiate Schools of Archi-
tecture survey.

It is now time for the debate. I am going to take my prerogative as moderator to throw out three
questions that can be ignored; you may have your own questions and your own comments
as well. I think our panel reflected the broad diversity that is found in Europe, if not globally:
diversity of opinions, diversity of contexts. We had old and new schools, we had scepticism
about the value of creativity, or what we mean by creativity. We have had challenges to reach
out further into the community, to think about the boundaries. From all this, I have three sets
of questions that could be used to frame some discussion.
The first is tied to the picture on the screen (Fig. 7). Syracuse University in the US did a survey
of their graduates since 1950 and asked them what professional fields they worked in. In this
slide, the bottom, largest section of the pie is architecture, the second largest is interior design,
but then the rest of the stripes are other areas. It is probably not important what the specific
areas are, but it shows the diversity of opportunities that graduates from an architectural
programme have tracked. This is over roughly a sixty-year period; it is not just that things have
changed and we do not necessarily know what the trends are from them, but at least it shows
something in the multiplicity of colours that we have from graduates.
My first question is as follows. It makes reference to the fact that in the new NAAB Conditions
for Accreditation that are proposed for US architecture schools, there is a new criterion about
teaching students about alternative careers. My question is, what do we mean by “alternative
careers”? Why do we need to use the modifier “alternative”? What do we mean by this? Simi-
larly, I think we should problematize the question of what we mean by practice. Marcos last
night differentiated practice and profession, where profession is highly institutional, highly
defined and perhaps not as interesting and not as useful for graduates today. Do we therefore
assume that by practice, we mean working in a firm that designs buildings? Whereas practice
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Fig. 7
2011 graphic published by Syracuse University School of Architecture of professional fields in which
alumni reported working currently.

could be turned into a sense of culture, which an architecture school instills in graduates with-
out presuming, without strongly defining what that sense of practice means. It could mean
the skills for creating spaces, the skills for addressing problems, the skills for finding solutions.
Second, what do we mean by thinking of architects as generalists? There is this tension between
specialization and being a generalist. It has been said that architects are the last generalists
out there in this age of technological tools and specificity. I know in the US there is a lot of
discussion about whether there should be certification for specialised kinds of architects, which
many people think is a dangerous thing and that the architect’s role is to be a generalist and to
bring people together, to use our ability to be lateral thinkers and the like. At the same time,
however, we have seen the growth of post-professional programmes; we have seen in Sally’s
presentation, the challenge to become an expert at everything and at whatever you do. With
the diversity of tools, with the diversity of opportunities, what does it mean to be a generalist?
Third is a challenge from me, which is the question: what differentiates an architecture school
from other schools that work in the design space? I think within the architecture profession,
we have a long tradition; we are very proud of it, we think that we are different, but at the same
time there are other disciplines, industrial design, graphic design and so forth. Anyone who
uses design has a claim to these tools. Therefore, what kind of case can you make to a student
to choose architecture over another kind of design if the interest of a student is in using design
thinking to address and solve problems? So why is architecture special in that area?

Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

President, The Athens School of Fine Arts (ASFA), Athens, Greece

I would like to thank the organisers and the council for the invitation to come and speak
here today. This topic is an important theme: it concerns the architectural profession and
architectural education. My position is that architecture has not evolved as a profession in
the way that we understand the professions of medicine or of law: a profession that reaches
everybody. Architecture has been a profession, which has reached only the people of power,
traditionally or otherwise. In this presentation, I would like to raise a few questions, or points
which I would like to consider briefly.

First, why has architecture not evolved as a profession widely used by all people? If you need
something very simple, you go to the doctor, whether it is a headache, whether your child
has fallen over and needs stitches, but you do not go to the architect if you want to remodel
your kitchen! I once saw a car parked outside my house in Pasadena, in California, and I went
outside to see if there was a truck from which things were being unloaded. A young man was
there; when I spoke to him, I realised he spoke with an English accent. I asked him what he
was doing and he told me he was remodelling the house next door to mine. I assumed he
must be an architect, to which he replied that he was a British marine; he had been holidaying
with his wife in Los Angeles, she had liked the climate so he resigned his post and they had
moved to their present location where he had obtained his licence to be a contractor. It can
therefore be seen that someone who obtains a licence as a contractor is doing a great deal of
the work that should have been done by professional architects. In that sense, one could say
that architecture has not been widely accepted as a profession: you only go to an architect if
you have all the money to construct a house, or a building by yourself, if you are a company
or something similar.
For the rest of what is going on, however, if we look at what is going to happen in the future
in Europe, there are going to be fewer new buildings, but a great deal more adapting of old
buildings; population growth is not that great, if not actually stagnating. Moreover, because
of environmental concerns, buildings that have been constructed with a concrete or steel
structure are not going to be demolished since these structures create a lot of pollution in the
town centres. There is going to be a lot more remodelling, therefore, with fewer flashy jobs
but jobs which need professionals. I cannot see why architectural students should not also
be trained to deal with these problems and are instead always pushed to dream of becoming
a star architect who does jobs in Dubai, in New York, in Shanghai or some other great city.

My second question is the following: how did architecture evolve in the past? There were two
types of architects: firstly, the master builder who built and from whom architecture evolved;
this was the original architecture, adapted to the needs of the people, the climate around them
and the local materials. There were also those architects, those designers hired by patrons,
people in power or in the church who would ask these architects to design a cathedral, or a
palace or such like. In terms of educating young people, it appears that the model being fol-
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

lowed is that which says that everyone is going to become the star architect. In my experience
– and I have taught in several countries, both in Europe and in the States – I have talked with
colleagues and we are not always sure, but at least we all agree that perhaps five or maybe
six out of a hundred students entering a university in architecture are real inventors and truly
imaginative people. The rest of them are normal, intelligent young people, sensitive perhaps,
visually sensitive, who should be given a good thorough background of what is decent and
what the service is that they can provide.
I think this is rather important, instead of focusing so much on invention and on pushing the
poor students to become inventive and innovative. Seeing that architecture draws on resources
from a variety of other fields, a person may be creative by using this knowledge in a creative
way, no matter what it is, whether it is a simple job, or a complex one. In some ways, much
more focus is put on “creativity”, on the artistic, on art versus technology or a combination of
both, and in this way, we also have the star architects who claim to be creating culture; yet one
could say that an architect’s job is basically to interpret culture.
This leads me to the point that there is no real agreement amongst all schools and amongst all
publications regarding the profession of architecture. There is talk about inventiveness, there
is talk about critical thinking, there is talk about many things, but the nitty-gritty of the matter
is whether people receive enough information or enough knowledge in terms of technology,
materials, methods of construction, how to create a healthy environment, how to respond to
both the environment and the climate, how to conserve energy and so forth, and yet nobody
stops anybody who is creative. People who are more creative will came forward and add their
own small contribution to the evolution of the culture. Essentially, however, we are not God,
we are not creating the top artist-creator. The issue is about cultivating creativity, which is
something that can be done if looked at from the educational point of view, whereas innova-
tion is basically inventing new things, discovering novelty. Innovation has become something
of a key word nowadays, at least in Europe: the word innovation is heard constantly. In reality,
however, it would be better if the focus were more on creativity. Those who are more inventive
will invent, and these people will be the innovators.
I mentioned before that the future of the cities in Europe is not necessarily expansion or demoli-
tion so much as the remodelling of buildings; this is a market, which should be addressed, not
by forcing people but by teaching people what it used to be. In the traditional model in the
schools of Europe there were two directions: on the one hand, there was the Ecole des Beaux
Arts and the Art Academies, which put more emphasis on the artistic creativity part. At the same
time, there were also the polytechnics, which gave a very thorough technological background
without preventing the young people from learning how to be creative. When I was a young
student, I used to stop on my way back from England to Greece; in those days, the German
schools finished later in the summer. I had friends in Karlsruhe so I used to go and listen to
Egon Eiermann who was one of the younger of the Bauhaus architects. He used to show bad
examples, not good examples, to his students, explaining why they were bad; instead of telling
the students what they should do, he would tell them what not to do and what to avoid doing.
Plenty of that can be seen all around. The question is what the focus should be in education: to
concentrate on the exceptional, or to elevate the average to a good profession. We must not
kid ourselves: the imaginative students, the truly imaginative students need this background
so that they feel confident in their ability to create and so they will continue evolving. However,
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

the average student walking out with a degree in the profession should learn also what is
right; they should be able to cope with all the issues.

To finish, I wanted to point out some things that have recently come out. There is a very interest-
ing study, published in 2011 by Christensen of the Harvard Business School, where an analysis
was carried out on people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Lazaridis of Blackberry and such like, to
find what the key characteristics were of these people. Educators are now saying that being
intelligent is not so important in achieving something in your life, so much as character traits.
The ability to concentrate, the ability to focus, the ability to be systematic, these are much
more important than being really smart. The characteristics which they observed are features
which could easily be part of education in architecture. These characteristics include those
of associating information, the ability to associate information and use it to think of some-
thing else; continually questioning whether there is another way of doing things; observation;
networking, or the ability to find people and explain to them what you do and to work with
them; and experimenting.
When I was a student in London in the late 1950s, early 1960s, out of the five days a week of
forty hours of obligatory attendance at school, one day a week was spent on what was called
Visual Analysis. From year one to year five, we were taken out for the whole day with the
faculty where, if I remember rightly, there were two painters and one sculptor, who would
walk around and discuss what each student had chosen to draw from objects in the British
Museum down to the Nash Terraces in the fifth year of buildings. This gave us the training to
observe and analyse what we saw and that is our tool as a profession. There are very many
things which can be done to improve the education which will also be much more responsive
towards the profession.

Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Rector, Bergen School of Architecture, Bergen, Norway

Cradle song for satisfied architects?

Or the challenge to re-improvise the crow act when no threat
is seen

This is an attempt to link the short presentation I held in session 3, (Managing change: Potential
roles and professional activities for architects) on the Norwegian situation, to the short comment
I gave in the closing session, (Synthesis and conclusions) on speedboats and grounding interac-
tion at sea. I will use an old Nordic folk song to bridge the gap.
While in Europe 25% of architects are unemployed, Norway currently has (as at July 2013)
118 registered unemployed architects, among them 18 partly unemployed 1. The figures are
updated monthly, and one can see how five persons go from being partly unemployed to
fully unemployed in the space of a month, or how half a year results in a decrease of 8 fully
unemployed architects, while 47 architects found themselves partly unemployed by January
2014. These are not dramatic numbers at this stage. The figures are modest enough to focus
our attention on each and every individual, and they hardly operate in percentages, as the
total number of practicing architects in Norway is estimated to be close to 6,000. Recent
graduates are not included in these figures during their initial phase of job-seeking unless
they register as unemployed, as they have not yet lost a job, but figures from our school
indicate that every graduate but one from last year’s diploma class was in employment
within half a year.

Norwegian architects have had many busy years after the international financial crisis in 2007,
which never put any serious pressure on the Norwegian economy. General population growth
and urbanisation are leading to increased activity in the housing market, while we continue
to see significant activity and demand for projects in the state and municipal sectors along
with a high, yet slowing, level of activity within commercial property. The activity level in the
Norwegian architect market could also allow for a huge inflow of architects from abroad. The
Architect Office association (Arkitektbedriftene) estimates that half of all employed architects
in Oslo come from abroad. I will argue that for the Norwegian architect sector this is a positive
effect of the imbalance of job opportunities among architects in Norway and the rest of Europe.
It results in exchange, input and experience that provide architect practices with impulses from
a broader reality, and from a situation that takes other aspects of the architectural practice
into account.
Another aspect of the imbalance in job opportunities in Norway and the rest of Europe does
result in rare threats to the price levels commanded by Norwegian architect offices, however,
as foreign practices attempt to get commissions in Norway by offering low prices or even free
labour, such as in the concept phases of major projects. Apart from these tendencies we find
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

ourselves in a situation where the pressure to change and challenge our role as architects is
not forced by the current state of the Norwegian economy. It is still possible for most architects
to dwell in conventional architect practices in Norway. We are not blind to the progressive
forces represented by young architects from countries such as Spain, for instance, and the
many young architects from abroad bring with them a different attitude towards seeing the
seriousness of the current situation in the field of architecture. A field we, with obvious satis-
faction, have taken for granted for too many years already.
In the north we look with admiration at the incentives offered to enter into a dialogue on
change and challenges within the current European social scene at offices such as Basurama
and Ecosystema Urbanos. This increased awareness and new attitudes amongst architects
in other countries influence the architectural debate in Norway, albeit not driven by urgent
economical need, but rather as a proactive questioning of which role we architects could
contribute to in regard to societal change. One example of how this debate is conducted was
the invitation in 2013 from the National Association of Norwegian Architects (NAL) to the
Belgium work collective Rotor to curate the most ambitious architecture triennial ever held
in Norway. With the exhibition ‘Behind the green door – Architecture and the desire for sus-
tainability’, this event displayed the appreciation of the approach of such an interdisciplinary
group challenging the means to work with architecture.
In terms of other aspects of the need for change, we, with our apparently solid economy, have
better resources to facilitate enquiries and grounded studies needed to launch innovative
incentives on issues such as how to deal with sustainability, for example. This is also manifest-
ing into awareness in the students’ self-defined diploma projects, which deal increasingly with
complex issues and decreasingly with regular building design, thus preparing the students
to start looking for these sites of possible enquiries, including them in their future approach
to architecture. The Norwegian organisation for architect practices (Arkitektbedriftene) states
that architects graduating from architect schools in Norway are not ready to run conven-
tional practices. They will need several years to fully cover the many areas of responsibility
not addressed in their programmes of study, but demanded by our authorities. Our architects
are trained as generalists in most fields. That is perhaps both our strength and our weakness.
While they will find it difficult to carry through a house project or plan a city once gradu-
ated, they have an understanding rather than a specific knowledge of the field. Through this
educational approach, the graduates do not necessarily leave school and immediately start
to build houses. Their education helps the graduates to find the space and agency in which
they wish to become architects.
In this respect different schools apply different tactics. There is a very big difference between
creating teaching facilities for the architects to design the most energy-efficient office tower
and creating an ambience in which complexities are discussed on a level where the stimuli in
societal change and structural means are put into play in forcing a more sustainable way of
thinking. This formulation of tasks encourages a different way of engaging society than the
pure task of creating the most energy-efficient office tower.
Herein lays an obvious potential for developing architects who can continue to improvise and
challenge their role. With more emphasis put on the potentials of this generalist perspective
within study programmes, our students could become better equipped to cope with more
formal roles of coordinating operations within a broader interdisciplinary field.
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Another aspect of clearing the ground for architects to manoeuvre through a broader catch-
ment area is raising awareness of what architects can actually do in society. When our school
was invited by the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) to conduct a master project, they
had expectations that we could handle pure design tasks such as camouflaging security bar-
riers like bollards within more friendly objects such as flowerpots and benches, but they were
much more satisfied when our students engaged in a broader discussion on how to facilitate
security within a public democratic expression.
In the medieval folk song about the crow 2 we hear of a man who was threatened by an
enormous crow to the extent that he fled empty-handed home to his wife after looking for
firewood in the forest. The wife was not very impressed, but then the crow came looking in
through their windows, and the man managed to kill it. Then begins a story of the many uses
he sees in the crow: he uses the eyes to make windows for his house, he uses the intestines
to manufacture rope, the claws as manure forks, while the beak is used as a boat to travel to
and from church. And here we see the parallel to the boat story of the closing remarks. In the
last verse of the song we are told that he who is not able to find a good use for a crow, is not
worthy of getting one.
In the crow song we can see how threat and need gave rise to improvisation, and not to mind-
less action. This was a task of calculating risk and gain and expanding the potential field of
agency. In our mountainous country this has always been part of our behaviour, but now we
need to reinvent this attitude, also within architecture.

Being a small speedboat, according to the criteria of Marcos Cruz, it is thrilling for us at the
Bergen School of Architecture to be sailing around with the big tankers and cargo ships. We
saw these boats displayed one by one in Cruz’s presentation. He emphasised the implications
of failing to manoeuver the boats, but I would like to remind you that the sea is a good place
for interaction. Nor-way, or Nor-wegen: In both English and German the name of the country
means the way to the north. A safe waterway used for interaction and communication. In
a country consisting of high mountains and deep fjords, the shallow waters to the lee side
of the outlying islands lining our coast were a preferred travellers’ route for those heading
north. Also, the significance of boats throughout history is not so much identified by the
boats’ size as by their cultural impact. A major shift in the north came when we discovered
how to make the huge sails for the Viking boats. That operation required a lot of sheep for
the woollen sails, and it was an indicator of agricultural development in our lands. Another
aspect is the Lofoten cod fisheries, where the type of boat can be said to be insignificant, while
the rules of behaviour at sea, the competition and the interaction were and are the essential
parameter for this practice to persist. This seasonal fishery starts like a strictly organised sprint
among the competing boats to reach the best locations at sea where the fish is expected
to gather. One of the major paintings from the national romantic era depicts a boat on its
way across the fjord from the church, carrying the bride and her companions. One version
of this painting depicts the wedding procession on the water, with the two boats carrying
the bride, groom and guests docking right in the middle of the fjord to share a toast, playing
and partying, representing mobile, dynamic, flexible networks at sea 3. What I address here
is the connection between the form, technology and function of the boat and the relations
constituting society. The boat is not just a tanker or a speedboat; it is a social and cultural
agent, and so are architect schools.
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

We need to keep telling ourselves that he who is not able to challenge the agency as an
architect, is not worthy of being one. This challenge is more apparent when no threat is seen,
but then the crow song can come in handy as a reminder.

1 Official figures updated every month and published by the architects’ union AFAG and compiled by
the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration NAV.
2 ‘Kråkevisa’ (‘The Crow Song’). An old song thought to date back to mediaeval times. Today found
archived in nearly a hundred variations of the text and more than 70 variations in melody (Norsk
3 ‘Brudeferden i Hardanger’, ‘A bridal party on the fjord’, 1853, Tidemand and Gude.

Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Deputy Head, Mackintosh School of Architecture, The Glasgow School of Art,
United Kingdom

Old school new school; change in the academy

session prompt
“ assuring knowledge , skills and competences with which will render them more
flexible, responsive adaptive in the financial and social dynamics.
How adequately do schools detect the trends and demands of the market?"


At the end of the last academic year my undergraduate class held a reunion celebrating thirty
years since we had completed our ARB/RIBA Part 1, the first three years of our architectural
education and the threshold to our first formal forays into the professional workplace.
We were a relatively small cohort, around thirty-five students, and over the yeas we stud-
ies together had become a close-knit group. Although some of us had kept in touch and
met still regularly over the years, curiously this was the first time we had attempted to get
everyone together. As the date approached I found I had mixed feelings about the event.
While I was curious about meeting people once more and discovering what had become
of them, I was also somewhat trepidations. There was a little less novelty in the event for
me, I now work where I studied so the reunion would involve me coming to work rather
than nostalgically revisiting an old but familiar hunting ground. There was also an element
of wondering how people had turned out; would the contemporary “us” be present be a
disappointment compared to our younger selves? More significantly, I had my sense of not
having moved on – what did I have to show for the past three decades? For me some of the
intervening period had been spent in professional practice before moving to becoming at
first a practitioner/ educator and then a full time academic (but still an architect none the
less). In the event the weekend proved to be very enjoyable and any initial self-consciousness
soon evaporated. People were largely as I had remembered them, and the interests, charac-
teristics and beliefs that they displayed as students generally remained, become developed
and sometimes amplified in adult persona. On one hand everyone was reassuringly familiar
but somehow we had also simultaneously substantially and significantly changed. Peers and
tutors had been asked to make a brief presentations about themselves and their work, and
as I sat and listened, I found myself thinking about how we were taught, how I aim to teach
now and the apparent changes in what I will refer to in the “academy”; the institution, the
programme it promotes and the overall educational it provides. This is the starting point for
this paper and the lens through which this particular and personal perspective of change in
architectural education is viewed.

Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects


I teach in the school of architecture where I undertook all of my formal academic education.
I am not unique in this and several of my colleagues were peers or near peers from my stu-
dent days. However as Deputy Head of the Mackintosh School, and previously both Head
of Postgraduate Studies and Head of undergraduate Studies, I am in a position that offers
considerable opportunity to define our ambitions, design the curriculum we offer, and lead
staff and students in realising this. This is teamed with the responsibility to consider how the
architectural education we offer can recognise the dynamic nature of the architectural profes-
sion, how an education can prepare students for future forms of practice and how education
can itself help shape that practice.
After over twenty years as in education I now consider my architectural practice to be the acad-
emy, and that academy to be the locus for my research as a practitioner. I see myself as much
as a practitioner as an educator. To understand that practice, which is complex and dynamic
with many actors, cultures and differing values is essential if the academy is to evolve, and to
prove the springboard to future practice.

Stasis and Change

The continual flow and flux of education and practice is of interest to me. While these changes
are easy to map in retrospect it is much harder to anticipate and predict. While architectural
education and practice are connected, the forces that prompt change and their cycles of change
are not the same and often result in disconnection rather than continuity. Change is part and
parcel of our daily lives. As part of a creative community we regularly speak about change as
if we seek it out, welcome and embrace it, even thrive on it; whereas in reality, for the most
part, we still find change highly challenging. Our views become settled, if not fixed, very readily
if we are not stimulated to consider, develop, reflect and evolve. Leon van Schaik describes
how, working with venturous practitioners who challenge the status quo and innovate, he
has come to understand the patterns of activity that mark the move to new knowledge and
an advancement of practice,
“our experience entirely parallels that of Howard Gardner’s research into the life
patterns of highly creative people. From an early age they gyrate between experi-
mentation on the margins of their discipline to seeking recognition at its core.
Understanding this oscillation helps practitioners to understand the cycle of energy
that they experience.” (van Schaik 2013)

Discovering the histories of my peers, how they had changed over the intervening years of
practice prompted me to consider how the architectural education provided at the Mackintosh
School had changed over the intervening decades, and to what intent and effect. How well
had the education we had received thirty years before prepared us for a professional life in
architectural practice? Had it prepared us for cycles of risk and consolidation, for future practice
or merely educated us to be as the previous generations of graduates?

Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

The Shape of education

In 1983 the Mackintosh School was both a department of the University of Glasgow and of Glas-
gow School of Art. We were the only students to enjoy this “dual nationality”, which also allowed
us to be part of both but also to be unusually somewhat removed from each. The school offered
both the Bachelor of Architecture degree and the graduate Diploma in Architecture. It was not
unusual for students to remain in the same institution for their full academic education, so we
were exposed to a coherent and comprehensive curriculum over a sustained five-year period.
While the Mac attracted a range of inquisitive and venturous students, geographically most
students came if not from the west coast then from Scotland itself. This stemmed from two
factors which limited student mobility; student funding, which provided fees and maintenance
grants to be paid for all provided they remained within the Scottish educational system; and
the fact that students continuing directly from secondary education were a year younger and
with different qualifications than their English counterparts.
The Mackintosh School itself was unusual in offering its architecture degree to students on both
full and part time modes of study. Part time study was a legacy of the apprenticeship system
that had been the predominant route to qualification until the 1958 RIBA Oxford Conference.
Elements of architectural education had existed within the Glasgow School of Art since its
initial establishment in 1845 as a Government School providing evening classes in drafting,
design, composition, drawing from life and life and nature, to apprentices who attended after
their working day in practice. By 1983 full time and part time student studied the same cur-

Fig. 1
152 The cohort of ‘83.
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

riculum with lectures and studios extending into the evening to allowing all students to be
accommodate in one peer group. While much, including the accommodation and the range
of curriculum, had changed, the overall ethos would still have been recognisable to C.R Mack-
intosh who had pursued his own architectural education there some eighty odd years earlier.
My class, which gained their RIBA part 1 in 1983, was fairly typical of cohorts at the time, in
Scottish architecture schools and most university cohorts. The majority had come straight from
school, which meant we were seventeen or eighteen years old. The prospect of the length of
the course, similar to that of medicine or law, meant that most students wanted to begin their
studies as soon as was possible. The gap year hadn’t been invented and would have seemed
only to postpone the opportunities university offered; the Scottish university system with its
four year long undergraduate degree is designed to provide for the student maturing during
their studies. Some students had come from farther afield, Edinburgh, Aberdeen even, but
there were no overseas student and none from the rest of the UK. There was however a wide
range of educational routes into the course, technical, sciences arts, some mixed. The issue
was not where you came from but where you wanted to go. To quote Paul Arden, “Its not how
good you are, it’s how good you want to be,” (Arden 2003).
Our teachers were mostly active practitioners, although few had any formal teaching training
or post graduate qualification. If you were a good practitioner you were invited to teach, the
logic being less about what type of teacher you might be and more about the quality of your
practice output. That said our studios were intensive by current standard; we met tutors several
times a week and we had ample studio space in which to work round the clock if we wished.
Classes were very small by current standards meaning there was little opportunity to hide. In

Fig. 2
The profession in 1983. 153
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

1980, the final year consisted of 14 students, including two women. At the same time first year
numbers had increased to 34, 50% of whom were women.
In retrospect what we were being taught on a daily basis connected to what we saw going on
the city around us. The staff provided a direct link between the teaching studio and architects
practice, in a far less mediated way than now. Drawing was the focus of our daily practice, and
although we came with a very varied skill set we very soon came to understand that it was
means to both explore and promote our ideas. There were fewer sources of information avail-
able; we shared certain key issues of journals and books, these were poured over continuously
and were the source of lively discussion and argument. The library was a critical resource, as
were visiting lecturers. In spite of this or perhaps because of this reduced level of information,
we seemed to be very close to anything were interested in. With a bit of effort on our part most
if not everything we needed was accessible to us. We were expected to be intrepid, curious, to
be able to recognise the gaps and be able to fill them in.
The shape of practice was more or less universally recognisable and constant to us in 1983, and
was a model that perhaps even C.R. Mackintosh would be familiar with. While there were prac-
tices who attempted to challenge the status quo these were the exception and not the norm.
Practice was relatively buoyant and the numbers leaving architecture schools largely mapped
on to those retiring and leaving the profession. There were also still numerous opportunities to
gain experience, in addition to the formal practical year out. Casual labouring work on building
sites was available and occasional work in practice allowed us to continue our learning over
holiday periods and let us test our skills and resolve. It was inconceivable that you would study
architecture without somehow testing what the job would be like on the ground. It was also
accepted that the numbers of students in architectural education would mirror the opportuni-
ties in the profession and support by the profession for the next generation, a virtuous cycle of
training, mentoring and qualification. As students at the Mac we had a single and shared ambi-
tion, to become architects. Ahead of us was a relatively steady course to realise that ambition.
Having completed our first degree, my peers, without exception found paid work, a “Year Out”
as architectural assistants, with the experience formally logged towards their final qualification.

The Year Out

Most students returned to the Mac for their second degree. This was not seen as a lack of
ambition but rather completion of a full and holistic programme of study. On completion of
the Diploma students qualified within a year, and began the climb up the ladder of practice,
through thresholds marking accumulation of experience and towards partner status.
As students our expectations for the future were clear. The trajectory into practice was well
defined and generally well supported by practice itself. To become an architect was straight-
forward and not in doubt, the open question was what kind of architect, where to practice
who to work with?

Education now

There have been significant changes across the sector in the past thirty years, not least the
154 numbers of students studying Architecture, with some 15,000 currently enrolled across 41
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

recognised schools in the UK. This increase is not particular to architecture; higher education
has been opened up allowing some 25% of school leavers to pursue education to degree level.
However it does present particular challenges within a discipline where there is no longer an
explicit connection between the numbers of students studying and the availability of posi-
tions within the profession, and therefore the opportunities to develop and pursue a personal
practice through the application of the theoretical to the outside world. It is now expected that
the market effects supply and demand, influencing the numbers of students who are able to
join the profession following their academic education, and theoretically driving the quality
of entrants up. As the numbers of students seeking year out positions grow, the opportunities
for casual and vacation work diminish meaning many students will have completed a degree
before ever having had the opportunity to be exposed to life in practice. This requires a leap
of faith on the part of many students not already connected to the profession, and favours
those with established networks.
Degree programmes attract now more women students but they still find developing careers
in practice problematic; architecture is not seen as a family friendly discipline. The discipline
in the UK still does not attract enough people from minority ethnic groups. This may be due
to too few relevant role models, as well as a perception that architecture does not have high
status or does not pay highly enough. The demographics of students studying architecture
show that it has remained dominated by the upper social classes requiring schools to consider
how to increase widening participation and diversify the basis of recruitment.

Student debt has become a significant across the UK with the introduction of tuition fees,
although there are no tuition payable by Scottish students . Given the comparatively low
salaries architects command compared to other professions, this has become one of the sig-
nificant considerations for students, schools and professional bodies. Demonstrating value
for money and more critically employability is essential if programmes wish to have a strong
base from which they can recruit.
The Mackintosh School remains one of the three schools that make up the Glasgow School
of Art, which is now defined as a Small Specialist Institution by the Scottish Funding Council,
allowing the focus to continue to be on the disciplines of Architecture, Design and Fine Art.
We form an intensive creative community, focused in a way that larger institutions would find
impossible. Studio practice remains at the core of what we do on a day-to-day basis, and our
viewpoint on architectural education is formed and reformed through this. However what
interests me more is how the Mac has developed over the last three decades, what direction
its evolution has taken and what impact that has had on its students.
Within the Mac, while the overall school has increased in size the most significant changes
have been in other aspects of provision. The curriculum is now more closely structured and
defined as with all degree programmes, a resultant of subject benchmarking, and the defining
of national qualification and credit standards. There is considerable reflection on how subjects
can articulate and can be integrated to from a coherent and ambitious programme of study.
Project briefs offer the opportunity for staff to set up challenging and supportive learning
events and to further refine the agreed objectives of each year. The studio space, which pro-
vides a working environment for all students, is the locus for experimentation, discussion and
testing, and key to establishing a studio stretching well beyond the timetabled day. 155
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Staff remain a mixture of full time academics and practitioners. It is however, now much more
likely that senior staff and subject specialist are actively engaged in research rather than prac-
tice. This has partly been the resultant of increasing academic workloads and institutional level
commitments, while the demands of indemnity insurance have made intermittent practice
activity a difficult business model to sustain. Three cycles of the Research Assessment Exercise
or subsequent Research Excellence Framework have also required research to be formalised,
open to peer review and audit and available to external audiences.
Practitioners form part of the teaching teams across all years. The demands of contemporary
practice and the intensive nature of teaching mean that the significant balance of their time
remains in the field of practice. Studio teams attempt to deploy the time available focused
towards student contact. This allows practitioners to connect directly to students but allows
less input to the development of the curriculum, the design of teaching events or other aspects
of the learning and teaching environment. However the recognition that delivering a state of
the art education requires you to consider how your educators are equipped for the task has
led to the professional accreditation of teaching, with academics now routinely expected to
held a teaching qualification as well as a discipline based expertise. Along with several col-
leagues I completed a Postgraduate Certificate in learning and Teaching in 2008, and this has
now become a contractual obligation for new staff. While the cost of the programme is borne
by the institution, the time commitment for fractional staff in practice can be problematic.
Another barrier to staff engaging with this can be the expectation that experience is a direct
substitute for pedagogic training, and this is a harder obstacle to overcome.

Fig. 3
156 The cohort of ‘13.
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Looking at the cohort of 2013 standing in the very same spot on the Mackintosh steps I can’t
help think they remind me of my own year group. Both photographs, taken just before Degree
Show opens, capture the confidence and uncertainty of the situation; no longer students but
then not yet architects either. When I consider the cohort of students who completed their
degree thirty years after my own, there are similarities to my own peer group, but in many ways
the situation has changed dramatically.
The student population is now very diverse. Mac students come from across Europe, the Far
East and North America, as well as from the UK. Students have chosen to study here, and have
had to succeed in a highly competitive selection process. In the Diploma in Architecture, the
ARB/RIBA part 2, they have often have chosen to come to be able to immerse themselves in the
making of architecture for two years, and to be confronted with the challenge of synthesising
design, urban and technological thinking to a high level of resolution. The complex and messy
business of making Architecture is confronted rather than avoided, a much more difficult path
to travel. In that sense the ethos is very similar to what I experienced as a student. While the
objective has remained largely the same, the environment has altered. Student numbers have
risen and levelled out as approximately 80 students in each of the five years of the professional
programmes. It is unlikely that this will change; having experienced larger cohorts working their
way the structure, we recognise that beyond a certain critical mass momentum, collegiality and
peer learning become much more illusive. A more appropriate way to develop the Mac portfolio
may be to consider the existing range of expertise and to consider what complimentary areas
of study could grow in parallel to the core professionally validated and prescribed programmes.

Fig. 4
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

The same studios remain the focus of student and staff engagement. Students continue to have
an individual workspace although these are densely planned and very intensely occupied. The
drawing boards have gone, replace by laptops, and as each year progresses increasing piles of
models, prototypes of building elements and other evidence of testing at scale and full size.
The studio is complimented by workshop spaces for making, a critical partnership across the
institution. While there may not be the same opportunities for experiencing the office there
is an established regime of testing and critiquing the proposal from inception to completion
that did not necessarily exist thirty years earlier.
Student expectations have shifted too. They are aware of the competitive situation that awaits
them on graduation, just as for the most part they had to compete for their place on the pro-
gramme. They are also conscious that the choices that they make on their journey through their
architectural training will shape the architect they become, by putting together a highly indi-
vidual and customised portfolio of education and experience, which no two students will share.

An architectural education provides a springboard leading to many potential career choices

rather than determining one. Do they wish to become an architect? If so what type of architect
do they want to become? Working in what type and scale of practice, and to what end? These
are some of the questions that they need to ask themselves to prepare for the career beyond.
In the final year, this exploration is encouraged and supported by staff through a critical self
reflection inviting students to confirm their strengths and weaknesses, identifying how they
wish to develop their skill set and knowledge base to work towards achieving their own goals
and to define how staff may directly aid them in this. The aim is for students to recognise
themselves as actors in their own futures rather than merely participants, and to utilise staff
as consultants rather than remaining dependent on staff to determine their futures.
This was particularly important given the recent recession that has affected the global economy
with national and regional repercussions. Given the direct impact on the construction indus-
tries and the vulnerability of architectural practice, this has prompted many students to rethink
their attitudes and preconceptions about the profession.
For some the uncertainly of the contemporary profession offers opportunities to travel, sample
and try many different options and perhaps also to challenge the recognised forms of archi-
tectural practice, for others the same uncertainly can be daunting and disabling. They also
find they have much more in common with students in fine art and design for whom there

Fig. 5
158 Responding to contemporary profession.
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

may not be a defined profession awaiting, but have to begin do develop their own personal
approach to practice while still a student.

We are our own research

I am now one of the tutors responsible for leading students through this very particular edu-
cation, and for determining exactly what that education should contain. For me the most
interesting issue for a school of architecture is whether it should respond to the demands of
the contemporary profession or attempts to prepare students for future practice. Any educa-

Fig. 6
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

tion in some way mirrors the context and circumstances of its time. The contemporary context
requires academics to reflect on how an architectural education can prepare students for a
professional world, where cycles of change are frequent and the role of the architect is by no
means recognised. To this end a significant part of our research activity is into the nature of
pedagogy in architecture, studio practice and the development of communities of practice.
This research also becomes material for discussions in the studio, forming an explicit link
between our research and our teaching, but also allowing students to become aware of how
they can continue to learn, reposition and recharge their practice over time through reflection
and challenging the orthodoxy. The ongoing challenge is how can we ensure that the practice
of architectural education shares equal status to the practice of architecture, and rethink the
contribution the academy can make to the architectural profession,
“ thus the most important obligation now… is to break out of the tired old teach-
ing versus research debate and define, in more creative ways what it means to be
a scholar.” (Boyer 1990).


30 years on how did we measure up?

With the advantage of hindsight it’s easy to see how we could have done things differently as
undergraduates. That part of our shared history is familiar, even more so after a few hours of
catching up and viewing the many photographs we took of ourselves in the pre-digital age.
What is clear and perhaps more surprising is how our rigorous but relatively traditional edu-
cation equipped us for the future, and supported our individual aspirations and trajectories.
Lets hope the same will be true thirty years form now.

Van Schaik, (2013) L, Practice Makes Perfect, in Architectural Review, October 2013, volume 1400, issue
Arden, Paul, (2003), Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be, Phaidon London
Boyer, E L, (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered; the Priorities of the Professoriate, the Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching, New York; John Wiley and Sons.

Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Maria de Fatima FERNANDES

Director of Architecture Course, Escola Superior Artística do Porto (ESAP), Porto,

Drawing is an important tool in the design process that all architects use in one way or another
and the range of applications is practically endless. Fatima Fernandes, architect and tutor of
architecture projects at the Escuela Superior Artística de Porto (ESAP), writes about using the
medium of drawing as a way to discover a place, unearthing the elements that comprise its
genius loci.

Draw (with) the Body

Para entender nós temos dois caminhos:
o da sensibilidade que é o entendimento do corpo;
e o da inteligência que é o entendimento do espírito
Eu escrevo com o corpo.
Poesia não é para compreender, mas para incorporar.
Entender é parede; procure ser árvore. 1

We have two ways to comprehend:

Sensitivity, the comprehension of the body;
and intelligence, the comprehension of the mind.
I write with the body.
Poetry is not to comprehend but to embody.
Comprehension is a wall; seek to be the tree. 2


Being ESAP an Art School with an experience of 30 years in the field of art education, its educa-
tional project/artistic/cultural states, by maintaining a strong link between all artistic disciplines
taught in different courses of ESAP, enables the development of innovative creative processes
based on a sustained investigation. ESAP is still characterized by an excellent academic environ-
ment, which results from its human dimension in a close connection between students and
teachers. Its location in the historic centre of Porto - classified as World Heritage - represents a
strategic choice that has stimulated continuous involvement in the urban environment in which
it operates, through exercise equated curriculum to meet specific needs or even requests from
institutions and local authorities. The decision to stay in the Historic Centre of Porto ensures
permeability between the School and the social fabric that surrounds it, giving respect to
the areas of the humanities course. The frequency with which receives groups of European
schools allows its students to work and study issues of heritage - the vernacular architecture to
modernity - sharing and enriching their views with others. This condition allowed a project that
interconnects exercise of the academic community in the urban structure and social territory,
introducing the teaching of architecture beyond an artistic & technical character and a strong
humanistic & sociological. The heritage school of fine arts continues to favor the design as a 161
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

working tool incorporating both new technologies, combining the research of new languages
to the study of heritage values.
A teaching methodology heiress from the School of Porto and a Bauhaus culture, which crosses
the disciplines of art and technology and underpinning knowledge in the understanding of
history, as a humanist field training progress tuned to a local culture that interacts and inter-
prets global diversity knowledge of courses associated with the arts area taught in ESAP. It
gives ESAP’s Master in architecture its own and unique character, making it one of the best
and rarest in Europe.
Thus, the formation of architect administered comprises a total of five years of full-time study.
This training is proven in a Public Proof final examination at college level named “Trabalho de
Projecto” and has the architecture as the main element. A balance between the theoretical and
practical aspects of architectural training ensures the acquisition of the following knowledge
and skills:
The sharing of facilities and equipment (Breadboarding laboratories, photography, printing,
serigraphy, etc..) with other areas of art education of the School, such as (Cinema, Video, Pho-
tography, Multimedia, Theatre, Visual Arts and Intermedia ...) allows the students an interdis-
ciplinary in their works with the use of a variety of means.
The School daily operation day and night (9-24 hours), the number of people that mobilizes,
by cultivating neighborly relations and the economic dynamics that creates, constitutes an
important factor of social development of the Historic Centre of Porto, which contradicts the
trend of population loss and urban decay in recent decades. ESAP’s identity is indelibly marked
by its origin in “Cooperativa ÁRVORE” and also by a large number of founders with a novel
teaching and an artistic view.
This condition is based as a UNESCO associated school, and makes it especially in the context
of establishing bilateral agreements with European Universities and Latin America

Our specificity

The human body is a natural measure of architecture, therefore it is used as a constant reference
throughout the process of design. During their education at ESAP 3 apprentices of architects
are trained by the drawing teachers to understand the proportion of the body, its movement
and the consequences of these movements in space. The lessons spent on drawing models
in the classroom and analysing and recording the rapid movements of people in the gardens
and the streets of the city have made the students proficient in using an important instrument
in design; the esquisse, a sketch that is not as raw as a croquis but more developed, while still
not being a completely worked out visualization. It is an instrument that allows one to put
something on paper that goes beyond the apparent reality of what is seen and observed, a
mediator between reality and thought. This mediator offers students the possibility to rapidly
capture their ideas at the speed in which they appear. The operation of investigation and
inquiry of ideas and thoughts reflect the attempt to capture in a space the memories of travels,
readings and even dreams; an attempt to rapidly assess a construction detail or the vision of a
territory, drawing architecture before its material existence. The implied velocity of execution
of the esquisse, and the elementary means with which this is done places this instrument in
162 the centre of the design development process.
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

The esquisses that the students develop from the beginning are the operational support of a
much broader system of instruments that can act on intuition and chance in an organized and
rational action necessary for the development of an architectural project. The consequential
universality of the esquisse as the architects’ working instrument makes it possible to draw
forms with the intention of materializing a series of criteria and foundations at the beginning
of the process of conceptualization. While still not immediately legible, these slowly conform
the space and – later – their professional work. Ultimately, at the base of that action is a theo-
retical and critical way of thinking that goes on paper as threads of ink that help define the
problems and bring about their solution, reaching the geometry of the space. ‘Architecture
is to geometrize.’ 4
The drawing is the great appoggiatura of the teaching practice in the ESAP project. This instru-
ment, which all students master by the end of their second year of school, allows them to
interpret every imaginary manifestation that arises from moment to moment, checking their
correspondence or discrepancy to introduce adequate advancement in the arduous work
of progressive projective operations that aim for the humanization of cities. In the process
of getting to know a location in which these passionate students will intervene, the esquisse
will show their abstract desires in observation exercises that register ratios and proportions of
the surroundings more easily understood and memorized than what would result from actual
observation by eye. Like Daedalus, they open their wings and fly over the earth to draw from
below and from above; from all its sides, its times and its silences. They draw the colour of
the days and the light over the body of the city in movement, in all of its abstraction. These
are drawings of their involvement in reality. But never is it reproduction. These are drawings
made by bodies that are subtly charmed by the cityscapes. The students observe them, they
wrap them without ever touching them and they apprehend them in order to later transform
them. Every exercise they are presented with in the course of their training as apprentices of
architects is an opportunity to give consistency and materialize an idea, to propose an adequate
architecture for a given site, which is simultaneously subject and object, and the construction
of an identity that consciously appropriates itself being elements from other cultures or those
of its own, in a constant dance that links the past to the future.
The communication of an idea of living, considering the architect as a creator that has the
privilege to materialize the conscience expectations and the unconscious imagery of an indi-
vidual or a collective, is an essential act for contemporary architecture, especially if one wants
to achieve its full compliance. Before all, the project is a mental thing. In the beginning, there
is no physical location. It is the task of the architect to fix the ideas and images that his mind
produces through drawings, through models, but also through writing. The idea as a result
of the mind is cloudy and incomplete. It only encounters its own form after the exploration,
the speculation and the modifications produced by the drawing and the models, which are
instruments of evaluation, formalization and materialization.
The geographical nature of the Atlantic and at times fluvial granite landscape of the city of
Porto is set up as the perfect laboratory, an authentic figurative territorial structure. A complex
formal structure with which the new ‘architectures’ and the public spaces proposed by the
students can confront themselves and with which they can entangle. Any architectural inter-
vention in this territory has the need to undertake a confrontation/procession with a system
of relations of both great and small scale, embracing and linking with the geography of this
complex location, and consequentially engage in a dialog with a role of reference, of visual 163
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Fig. 1
Course unit: Drawing, 1º
Year, Architectural Inte-
grate Master of ESAP. Pro-
fessor Mário Mesquita.

Fig. 2
Course unit: Drawing, 1º
Year, Architectural Inte-
grate Master of ESAP. Pro-
164 fessor Jorge Pimentel.
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Fig. 3-5
Magno Scavone, Study for The Grid. Course unit: Project, 2º Year, Architectural Integrate Master of ESAP.
Professor Eurico Salgado. 165
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Fig. 6
Course unit: Drawing, 2º Year, Architectural Integrate Master of ESAP. Professor Telmo Castro.

Fig. 7
Thoma Neutel. Study for City Gates project. A4, Ink on paper. Course unit: Project Work, 5º Year, Architec-
166 tural Integrate Master of ESAP. Professor João Carreira.
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Fig. 8-10
José Soares. Study for
Atlantida City project 1,
2 & 3. Course unit: Project
Work, 5º Year, Architec-
tural Integrate Master of
ESAP. Professor Fátima
Fernandes. 167
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

and physical characters of the same territory, with the genius loci of the location. 5 At the same
time the students learn to make the project comprise the drawing of the land itself, the steep
areas of the city and of the escarpment, the river and the misty sea, which means the plan of a
system of constitutive relations of a new territorial order, in summation the plan of a landscape
in the most comprehensive sense. The architecture will be the result of these conditions; it will
have to be generated by them to become a mediator between nature and our perception of it.
It will be a kind of sensitive skin that will surround the human and protect him.
These exercises are in turn inscribed in the interest for the values of a whole, composed of the
natural and built on a process of the ongoing relationship with the individual components of
architecture. The concept of space appears obviously determined by the interaction between
the whole and the part, the mix of forces which, requiring the drawing of all parts, never loses
sight of the whole, from the urban logic to the constructive system and an essentialism of
the forms, so that the sense of balance is not solely physically but also sensory. A precious
condition that guarantees the attempt of coherent definition of new landscapes, more con-
sistent with the natural environment and unequivocally supported by the poetics of place,
practising architecture as a poetic profession whose writing is drawing.

1 Manoel de Barros, Arranjos para assobio (Rio de Janeiro: Record, 1998), 73.
2 Frank van Kessel, free translation of the poem by Manoel de Barros, ibid.
3 Escola Superior Artística do Porto.
4 Álvaro Siza, Emaginar a evidencia (Rome-Bari: Gius Laterza e Figlie, 1998), 27.
5 NORBERG-SCHULZ, Christian: Genius Loci, Academy Editions, Universidade do Minnesota, 1980.

Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Dean, Faculty of Architecture, University of Lublijana, Slovenia

Spatial Studies Revisited

We wish to draw attention to the now neglected role of artistic creation as an important form
in the research process, and to the much needed collaboration and integration of all forms
and levels of research. This is particularly important for the Faculty of Architecture. Namely,
in the academic circles of European schools of architecture, the question persists: What is the
primary role of the schools: teaching or scientific research? Notably, a half of European archi-
tectural institutions has embarked on the road of predominantly theoretical scientific research,
abandoning architectural creation as the basic subject matter of teaching, while replacing it
with its own para-discourse – this has become a field of science by itself; however, without
a significant impact on material realization in architectural practice. European bureaucracy
has proposed to unify the criteria and forms of research work in all European faculties of both
technical and social sciences. In doing this, we have completely neglected the long-tasting
tendency of the other half of schools which are proving that architectural design is, in fact, an
important, if not the most important, form of research work that is specific to our field. When
we replace the spatial representation of a concept with text, we replace the complex form of
communication with a linear one, which all too often cannot convey the true meaning of the
investigated subject.
To illustrate the complexity of optical perception and understanding of a concept by looking
at its graphic depiction, let me give an example from fine arts – painting. Years ago, the original
Tate Gallery in London hosted an exhibition of one single picture by the painter Édouard Manet:
The Execution of the Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian, the Habsburg emperor of Mexico, in
Mexico. The entire wing of the gallery, several-stories high, was dedicated to the explanation
of the painting. The exhibition revealed the entire social and historical context of the painting’s
origin, newspapers from the era, painter’s previous studies, his personal experience, friends,
social position and education, political views etc. Countless books on the subject matter could
hardly replace the impact of the whole message hidden in the painting. We can say something
similar about architecture. It would take a very thick book to hold everything that is hidden
in the architect’s solution or in the background of the decisions made during a competition.
However, for fellow architects a glance at the graphic depiction of a project is enough to
perceive the meaning of the solution and the background of the decisions made. Similarly, as
Chinese characters hide thousands of years of historical sediment of meanings, whose com-
plexity is difficult to translate into western sentences, the architect – in his research through
a project – uses a more complex way of expression than offered by linear scientific writing.
A graphic plan is the more clever and compact form of expression that needs no additional
textual explanations. If we, architects, do not need a textual description of our research, then
who does and who should write it? Usually, this is done by critics and art historians, who, in
principle, miss the point. Texts can be written by the authors themselves, but with not enough
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

critical distance, and at the expense of time that might have been better used for communica-
tion with colleagues through our own, more complex medium.
In well-known studios around the world and in Slovenia, project teams now include copy-
writers. Rather than mere recorders of events, they become equal team members who take
part in the creation of solutions. Such a decision is “scientifically” justified by medical science,
i.e. in the distinction between the hemispheres of the human brain, which are in charge of
two kinds of thinking – convergent thinking where the functions focus on coming up with a
single solution, and divergent thinking where the mind works in a way to find as many solu-
tions, ideas and answers possible. On the one hand, there is vertical thinking where reasoning
goes from one point to another, arriving at a single answer, and on the other hand, there is
lateral thinking, which progresses in »curves«, thoughts come from »aside«, unexpectedly, and
depend on random factors. Edward de Bono argues that lateral thinking is characterised by a
wide span of attention. A thinker does not know where his ideas come from nor does he care
about it. Ideas come in a meditative state, which is characterised by relaxation of the mind
and a high level of personal freedom. Any kind of prohibition, order, control or self-control will
immediately stop the process. A creative person excels in both types of thinking. First, lateral
thinking is used, giving rise to original thoughts, then vertical thinking – checking, confirming
or rejecting. Lateral thinking only may lead to daydreaming, autism, and only vertical thinking
leads to dull repetitions of the same operations and sterility of thought. The problem is that
lateral thinking is blocked by vertical thinking. Assuming that we need two types of thinking
simultaneously, i.e. two types of research, then research focusing on the pursuit of new ideas
basically calls for a relaxed atmosphere.
This assumption can by illustrated by a real event from World War II. Time and again, the British
tried to destroy the dams of German hydro power plants, which provided Germany with an
abundance of electrical power, despite the war. The dams were situated in narrow river canyons
and were practically an impossible target to hit during classic air strikes. They engaged the help
of Barnes Wallis, an innovator and brilliant army engineer. And what did he do next? Instead of
filling in complex forms on hypotheses and study goals, financial deadlines and use of funds,
he left the burning London and took his family on a two-week vacation, to the seaside. There,
he lingered on the beach, played with the children in skipped stones across the sea surface.
And there the idea about the bouncing bomb was born – the idea which lead to successful
demolition of German dams. The moral of the story is that lateral thinking and new ideas come
in a creative environment, in a liberated territory without limitations and concrete expectations.
Provocation is another important tool of creative thinking. Educational processes, upbringing
and experience have taught us that thoughts should be logically connected one with another.
However, in provocation the thought that follows may be in complete opposition to the previ-
ous one, and it may well be wrong. We need a trigger that will give us a fresh viewpoint, an
association. In his lecture at the IEDC Bled School of Management, Dr Bill Fisher, Professor of
Technology Management at IMD Lausanne, Switzerland, argued that in order to be innovative,
you should not be (too) polite. Polite teams will lead you to polite results. However, they cannot
be bold (enough) or lead to breakthroughs. Ideas require their own processes – similarly to the
flows of materials, money and other means in a company; the best companies are those where
the employees have the feeling of total freedom, and the employers the feeling of total control.
The end goal of science and, indeed, arts – including architecture through its artistic practice – is
170 the pursuit of truth. This is their most important mission. Only a true knowledge of the world
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

can help plan a successful future. The process of searching for the truth is the main thing, while
art works are a by-product of the search. They are a metaphorical language, which helps to
bring over the discovery of truth and the basis of new tasks of science and arts. To those who
use convergent thinking. I, for one, have no answer about the true mission of art, i.e. of the part
of our mind that is controlled by the right hemisphere. What does art express and how does it
do it? In his Harvard lecture on Musical Semantics, the famous American composer, pianist and
conductor Leonard Bernstein said that music, as an art, is capable of producing a significant
expressive power, but that people also have the ability to respond to it in the way that the artist
expects us to. Music conveys its message through metaphors, through metaphorical language.
It expresses a sentiment of something beyond the real and tangible. Much like in poetry, the
metaphor is the source of its expressive strength. In music, the metaphor, as Bernstein sums
up after Kant, is “das Ding an sich”, the thing in itself, a reality outside our conscious reality, an
extra-conscious existence. Aristotle places poetry halfway between the real and intangible
worlds, stating that one can come closest to truth through metaphors. Quintus Tullius Cicero
(102 BC–43 BC) is even more resolved, as he believes that a metaphor has the hardest task of
naming something that otherwise could not be named, the feelings of a person's inner world.
The role of art is to predict, in its metaphorical way, future change. It is a premonition of the
future. On the other hand, architecture builds for the future. We design something that we
believe will work in the future, in a way and form that it was conceived and predicted. Hence,
the task of architecture as an art form is a translation of the metaphorical, intangible word, as
a foresight and premonition of the future, to the real world of tangible forms and organisa-
tions. It is a trailblazer for concrete tasks and targeted research and it shapes new paradigms.
Do we truly need two kinds of research in architecture: scientific and artistic? Vertical, scientific
thinking is consecutive thinking, lateral thinking skips from one thing to another. Vertical,
scientific thinking makes us take one step further at a time. Each step is a continuation of the
previous one and the link between them is strong. The validity of a conclusion is checked with
the correctness of the steps taken to arrive at the conclusion. In lateral thinking, the steps are
not consecutive. We may jump forward, to a new point, and only then fill in the gap behind.
Due to the different and, indeed, complementary nature of both approaches, it is beneficial
in practice to link both types of experience in one person or in a team, which leads to synergy
and encourages innovation in both research poles. In the words of Oscar Niemeyer: “After I
sketch a design on paper, I try to describe it in a few words. If it cannot be done, I throw the
paper away and start again”.
At the 16th Meeting of Heads of Schools of Architecture in Chania, Crete, we, the deans, asked
ourselves what and how to teach in today's unclear and changeable times. The more scien-
tifically focused ones promoted a larger number of specialised courses or very narrow spe-
cialisations. I believe that university students must be supported in their growth into both
intellectuals with the ability of abstract thinking and experts in the relevant field. This universal
ability of thinking will enable a larger employment flexibility in our own and other fields, and
provide a “common ground” of communication and connection with other disciplines. To
achieve this, the students will need creative peace where a free transition through project tasks
from the lower to the higher levels of abstraction is possible. This is a process of maturity that
cannot be skipped if we want to shape inquisitive, inventive and critical thinkers, and socially
and professionally motivated intellectuals and architects; and researchers who will be able to
connect both poles of creative research. 171
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects


Michael Monti, USA

I am going to take my prerogative as moderator to throw out three questions that can be
ignored; you may have your own questions and your own comments as well. I think our panel
reflected the broad diversity that is found in Europe, if not globally: diversity of opinions, diver-
sity of contexts. We had old and new schools, we had scepticism about the value of creativity, or
what we mean by creativity. We have had challenges to reach out further into the community,
to think about the boundaries. From all this, I have three sets of questions that could be used
to frame some discussion.
The first is tied to the picture on the screen: Syracuse University in the US did a survey of their
graduates since 1950 and asked them what professional fields they worked in. In this slide, the
bottom, largest section of the pie is architecture, the second largest is interior design, but then
the rest of the stripes are other areas. It is probably not important what the specific areas are,
but it shows the diversity of opportunities that graduates from an architectural programme
have tracked. This is over roughly a sixty-year period; it is not just that things have changed and
we do not necessarily know what the trends are from them, but at least it shows something in
the multiplicity of colours that we have from graduates.
My first question is as follows. It makes reference to the fact that in the new conditions
for accreditation that are proposed for architecture schools, there is a new criterion about
teaching students about alternative careers. My question is, what do we mean by “alterna-
tive careers”? Why do we need to use the modifier “alternative”? What do we mean by this?
Similarly, I think we should problematize the question of what we mean by practice. Marcos
last night differentiated practice and profession, where profession is highly institutional,
highly defined and perhaps not as interesting and not as useful for graduates today. Do
we therefore assume that by practice, we mean working in a firm that designs buildings?
Whereas practice could be turned into a sense of culture, which an architecture school instils
in graduates without presuming, without strongly defining what that sense of practice means.
It could mean the skills for creating spaces, the skills for addressing problems, the skills for
finding solutions.
Second, what do we mean by thinking of architects as generalists? There is this tension
between specialisation and being a generalist. It has been said that architects are the last
generalists out there in this age of technological tools and specificity. I know in the US there
is a lot of discussion about whether there should be certification for specialised kinds of
architects, which many people think is a dangerous thing and that the architect’s role is to
be a generalist and to bring people together, to use our ability to be lateral thinkers and such
like. At the same time, however, we have seen the growth of post-professional programmes;
we have seen in Sally’s presentation, the challenge to become an expert at everything and
at whatever you do. With the diversity of tools, with the diversity of opportunities, what does
it mean to be a generalist?
Third is a challenge from me, which is the question: what differentiates an architecture school
from other schools that work in the design space? I think within the architecture profession,
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

we have a long tradition; we are very proud of it, we think that we are different, but at the
same time there are other disciplines, industrial design, graphic design and so forth. Anyone
who uses design has a claim to these tools. Therefore, what kind of case can you make to a
student to choose architecture over another kind of design if the interest of a student is in
using design thinking to address and solve problems? So why is architecture special in that
area? The floor is now open.

Neslihan Dostoglu, Turkey

I have a question in general, rather than to a specific person. In times of crisis, we talked about
what each country or each school is trying to cope with in dealing with all the problems of
the crisis. I was wondering how students are reacting to this. I was especially interested in
Sally Stewart’s presentation related to her idea about how students should behave. But I was
wondering, what do students feel about all this and how do they cope with all these problems?
My second question, again related to this issue, concerns the role of the Chambers of Archi-
tects in the different countries which are represented on the panel. How do the Chambers of
Architects or Institutes of Architects respond to these problems of crisis?

Sally Stewart, United Kingdom

That is a very interesting question. I think that one thing to remember is that most architec-
tural students will have one attempt at being an architecture student, so when they meet
new circumstances, it is probably the first time they will have encountered them. For us, we
are the people who have encountered these problems many times before. For our students
in particular, in a time when jobs are not so available and you have to go and chase them,
even if you are very highly skilled, or have a very good qualification, it is not necessarily the
case that you will get the job. It might be the first person to arrive who gets it. Therefore, we
have to act as very clear mentors for the students; we have to give them lots of advice and
suggestions and make sure that they understand, in that sense, that our door is always open
and they can come back regularly, continually, if they need help.
In a more strategic way, however, and certainly for our final year students, what we do is
that we have asked them across the year to be self-reflective. Students are encouraged
to identify what they think they are good at and what they think they are not so good at;
where their confidence lies and where it does not. They are also encouraged to actually
write that down and discuss it with their tutor if they feel open enough to do so. The point
is that quite often, we find that students do not recognise the things they are very good at,
and they overestimate the things they are bad at. They do not necessarily have a strategic
way of putting together an approach for themselves. The very self-aware students do, but
most do not. We have found that this has actually built confidence in students. I think this
is perhaps the difference that I see between them and my cohort: we might have been
self-deluded, but we were very confident. I see more and more students that are interested
in entering architecture, but have less confidence about what will happen to them next. I
think that what we have to do is build up their confidence in their skills and in themselves
so they feel resilient and prepared.
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Cecilie Andersson, Norway

I can also answer very briefly because we are now seeing a particular initiative in Norway. This
is the Associations for the Architect Practices; working together with the schools, they are
now launching a lifelong teaching programme. It was not previously the case in Norway that
there was the mandatory requirement that architects should continue to learn also after they
graduated. Now, however, they are on the verge of creating such a scheme and they are doing
this combining both the student’s perspective and the practitioner’s perspective, so that it is
a joint win-win situation for them to exchange more knowledge. The situation in which the
students find themselves is perhaps quite different from the position in which the practitioners
find themselves. Therefore this bridging is needed in order to cope with the ever increasing
scope and cost of these changes and transformations.

Konstantinos Moraitis, Greece

Yesterday night we had the very important presentation of Dr Marcos Cruz from the Bartlett
School of Architecture; it was a very impressive presentation. Today I think we have another
impressive presentation concerning the Slovenic example from our dear friend from Slovenia.
Do you think that those two different examples offer two different paradigms of what innova-
tion means? I would like an answer from both the panel and the audience.

Peter Gabrijelčič, Slovenia

I should perhaps answer this one. My understanding of architecture is nearest to that of Framp-
ton, when he talks about what the duty of an architect is, and what his design is. It is, in some
way, a way to know where. Without any barrier, or anything being taboo, you just have to start
it, from the needs of the people, from the conditions of the site, listen carefully because the
site has everything hidden within it. If you have time, if you know how to catch the fish and
you have the time to do this, you can get it. That is it. Innovation is therefore a way to know
where and when it happens, and the end result is something. It is impossible to say, this is a
house; it is something. It is not yet valuable through the aesthetic, it is something. For me, that
is the right way of designing architecture, the true way. It always used to be. Now there are
some rules of art historians to say what a certain house should look like. We are slaves to many
different barriers to which we sacrifice ourselves because we do not have a chance to react in
the right or appropriate way. There is no chance to find the right solution. I do not know what
it is like in other countries, but in my country there are so many stupid rules which immobilize
our efforts to do something good for people. This is one thing.
Another thing is that we must teach and develop an awareness of our clients, because our
clients are not just the rich; indeed, they should not be if we have social empathy. People need
our work and we need those people to express our duties. As a profession, we have a duty
and a responsibility to society. Yet nowadays there seems to be something of a breakdown
between us and the clients. Just after the crisis, people now think that architecture is just for
the rich. I remember some clients came to me recently and asked, can you do something crazy
for me? To which I replied, no, architecture is not a crazy thing, it is a clever, rational thing, it
should be poetic, rather than crazy. We must improve people’s knowledge of architecture and
174 what it means.
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

As I demonstrated, more than 90% of all the buildings were made without architects. It is as
if we are a company that makes cars, but without a marketing department. We are produc-
ing cars continuously, but for whom? This I think is the main task. When I was at the deans’
conference a little while after, the first point I made concerned the political effort of the school
to raise public consciousness about what architecture actually is. This is essential. So I can-
not simply talk about innovation. Architecture has always been innovative. I attended the
lectures at the Berlage School regarding parametric architecture and heard their explanation
about how to design a chair; that you must know something about the bones. Architecture is
always the same for me. It depends on awareness of the problem, about our education, about
new technology and so forth, but the basic knowledge of how to do something and how to
think remains the same, as in other professions. For me, it is therefore much more important
to teach people how to think because it is the way of thinking that is an innovation, is it not?
New ways of thinking are innovations.

Spyros Raftopoulos, Greece

I would like to raise a question from looking at the diagram that has been put up on the screen.
Admittedly, it is an American example, by which I mean that if it were a European one, it would
differ in certain sections – restoration, for example, would be much larger and so forth – but it
remains more or less similar. The reason I am saying this is because the question which then
arises is whether the schools should adapt their curricula to try and cater for all these different
professions or occupations that architects actually do in real life. We must face the fact that
this type of architect and this type of diagram showing these types of occupations really are
a result of – if I may say – a typical curriculum of a school that has been operating until today.
This means a wide sort of educational system, which gives the architects the opportunity
and the knowledge to do some of these things. Would there be a possibility of adapting, or
perhaps a necessity to adapt the curriculum in a different way and try to think, seeing that
there are people that are actually occupied in graphics, shall we do more graphics in our cur-
riculum? It is a question of an additional sort of uncertainty that has been expressed – even if
the presentations from Sally and Spiros do not necessarily coincide – uncertainties regarding
what the people who graduate can do once they have actually finished their studies and once
they actually start practising their job.

Spyros Amourgis, Greece

I wanted to reinforce this point and perhaps also address the very good questions that were
posed at the beginning. Some of the most successful curricula that I came across teaching in
at least five different countries, four in Europe and one in the States, were those curricula that
took the students – this applies to the generalists also – through the design exercise from
scale to complexity of different typologies of buildings so that the students become aware
of the problems that my colleague from Slovenia has previously mentioned. This means they
can think about what educational facilities actually mean. What does an elementary school
mean, or a city hall? What is a public building, or what is the meaning of mass housing? What
are the different problems from those found in an individual home? The student is thus taken
through a promenade of exercises that exposes them and gives them what one might say is a
generalist, someone who has a rounded, general education. In that curriculum are peppered, 175
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

at the appropriate level, other exercises taken from, for example, graphics, so you can select
the lettering when you are doing the shop front; there are exercises from furniture, landscaping
and so forth. This is not done so as to become an interior designer or a landscape architect or
furniture designer, but in order to learn to respect what these people can do and to be able
to hold a dialogue with them.
There is nothing more common than these inter-disciplinary committees which are usually
taken over by the more dynamic participating members who appear to know everything and
seem to direct everything. A good team is when you respect what the landscape architect is
and you then place your demands; as an architect you may want tall plants, or trees, in order
to have the south protected from the sun in the summer, you may want deciduous or not. You
can give some requirements so you can work better and let the other person design what to do.
That is another quality of the generalist. If a student goes through that curriculum and wants
to deal for the rest of their life with industrial design, that is fine and they may therefore train
a little more in the specific direction they finally choose.

Fernandes, Maria de Fatima, Portugal

I believe that practice and profession are actually no different and I do not agree that they are
different. I think that to be an architect in the past or to be an architect today or to be one in the
future, indeed, to practice architecture at any time, the same things are needed. The architect
needs to be able to make a cup or a city, or a piece of large infrastructure on the ground. For
this reason, the school needs to be prepared to work with the students in order to give them
the instruments to understand and to see, to take the right decisions.
The students certainly need to be given an understanding of culture, but sometimes all that is
needed is to individualise the character of the student and help her to become her best. The
student must be helped to develop her capacities and to understand that the other things
needed to do architecture can also be taken from the school, but that intuition and sensibility
are within the student herself. We only need to understand what sensibility that student has.
I agree that architecture is more a poetic profession than a technological one. Technology is
obviously necessary and always has been: in the past, technology was also needed in order to
make all that humanity conceived and constructed. The cities and buildings that we remember,
those where we like to live, and the ones that make us feel positive emotion, are those which
are not only constructed through technology. Rather, they require sensibility and they need
to provoke emotion within us.
I therefore think we do not need to change the schools that much; we need to look at the
background and to understand that we need to innovate. Yet to innovate is not just to use a
new material, we work with stone, with marble, with materials that have always been used as
building materials. Sometimes the way of building has also been changed using these same
materials and instruments. I therefore think that to do architecture, sensibility, the poetic, is
the most important. Technology is very easy to take away.

Constantin Spiridonidis, Greece

It is more of a comment rather than a question. I would like to share with you some of the
176 thinking that was behind the structure of the agenda and more specifically, the structure of
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

this particular part of the agenda. I would like to make a comment that connects to history,
which has emerged from the discussions we have had in this room. These concern some
interesting strategic dilemmas for architectural education that we have had the opportunity
to discuss over the years.
It is interesting to notice that when we started the meetings in around 1998, the discussion
around the strategy for education was that the ideal is a generalist education. That was the
main theme under which someone wanted to give content: what does it mean? Some years
later, between 2001 and 2005, we changed this agenda and we started to discuss the dilemma
of which was better: general education or specialist education? That coincided with the Bolo-
gna policies, which separated the degrees into two parts and many schools started to orientate
themselves towards specialised Masters courses. At that time, the question became about
which kind of specialisation would be taught and what the relationship would be between
this and the general education. At that time, it seemed that there was a kind of optimism
that specialised studies would assure better professional conditions in architectural practice.
Very soon, however, we began to think that this was not a panacea and that we would have to
invent other ways of specialisation, that is to say, to achieve a very easy movement from differ-
ent versions of specialisation so someone could have a kind of Master’s degree in something,
but at the same time, it would be easy afterwards to go to other sources so that someone would
be able to cross the colours of different activities related to architectural education. It was
interesting that within a very short time, we had completely different preferences regarding
the strategy of the education of the architect. What is important is that during this discussion,
the generalist architect always remained as a target of architectural education, but that was
not the centre of interest.
What has been interesting to notice is that over the last three or four years, this discussion has
moved completely from the search for specialisation and is moving towards the generalist
architect, so one could say that it is the same discussion that we were having at the beginning
of 2000. I think it is not the same, however. Here I have to define my point of view on this.
I have heard several times today that we have to look at things that do not change, that the
essentials are those things, which are common in time. I think this is a perfectly respectable
point of view, and one that belongs to a way of thinking where the complexity of the work has
been studied by looking for the essentials, in other words, those things which have remained
stable throughout the years. For example, the fact that a human being is born under the same
process is the most significant thing and that defines a way of things happening. But the
opinion that it is the things in common which are significant changed during the seventies
and eighties when it was said that the fact that each one of us is born though the same proc-
ess is not more significant than the fact that one baby may be born at home and another in a
luxurious hospital: this difference is much more significant than the similarity.
This made us start looking at the differences, to look for the genius loci, to look for particular
and cultural identities. In doing so, we left behind all those things, which were the same, such
as standards, models and the kind of reference with which models provided us. I strongly
believe that nowadays, both differences and similarities have to be taken into consideration.
To take a certain standpoint: if someone is looking at things from this perspective, this map-
ping which is there and the discussion which has now moved towards the generalist architect,
I think that there are evidently common things, but there are also significant differences. If 177
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

the presentation of Marcus Cruz is taken into account, added to the presentation of Alberto
Gomez yesterday morning, then it can be seen that this discussion about the generalist is
tending towards the more abstract, even towards a higher level of abstraction connected to
the conception of architecture.
We have a different conception of architecture nowadays; this conception of architecture goes
in the direction of something that has been mentioned several times today, such as a way of
thinking. This way of thinking is not the same way of thinking as there was in modernism or
during the eighties, for example, during post-modernism. There is a different way of thinking
today. Taking into account that we have this number of colours, I think it is a very interesting
dilemma for a School of Architecture, looking at that, to wonder: what is the educational strat-
egy? Is it towards specialisation, or is it going towards something more abstract which would
cover this in a more efficient way so that the students and the graduates can find their own
preferred colour? Yet here there is a risk, which has to be considered quite seriously. How can
we look at all these colours without losing the focus of the green one, which is architecture?
For, if we go very far from architecture in order simply to remain in a global discussion about
innovation and creativity and such like, then we will probably lose the focus of architecture.
We must therefore overcome this – as Russell put it – situation of colour blindness in which we
find ourselves, because we all have always known that it is there, but we organised our cur-
ricula looking only at the yellow colour. As a percentage, it is very limited. It is very interesting
therefore to find a way to see all the colours without losing the dominance of the yellow: this is
the contemporary dilemma, which exists in School of Architecture. It is not possible to predict
how many colours will appear but we must have prepared people to be placed in one of those
colours, not excluding the yellow. For me, this is the most contemporary strategic question
concerning the education of the architect.

Sally Stewart, United Kingdom

I think this diagram is very interesting although I am not sure what the original question was.
If the question was, what fields as an architect are you now operating in, that would be an
extremely interesting diagram because it might start to show the range of activities that archi-
tects are now connecting up with. This might demonstrate the hybridisation development of
the pure architect. If it is a case of someone saying they are not working in architecture now,
but I am working in interior design, or not for profit or something else, then that would be
a different situation. I think in the first scenario, in effect, in an educational system, while we
cannot teach all of these things, we can teach our students not solutions but ways to approach
the practice. This then allows them to find and deal with the opportunities that might present
themselves. The students might then find that their niches are a combination of architecture
and interior design, or architecture and not for profit and so forth. This enriches the profession
and actually makes the profession move beyond the traditional boundaries, which see the
architect as one thing. To be honest, that is what has made architects so poor and what has
made it so challenging for many people to make a living. There are different ways in which
this could be read, therefore, and there are different reactions, which one might have to it. I
think what has to be seen in it, though, is what the opportunity might be for the profession
here and recognising the fields out of which people are making their professional practice.
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Cecilie Andersson, Norway

I think that maybe this new generalist is a specialisation in coping with the unforeseen; it then
becomes about acknowledging the irregularities and coping with them in a different way. I
came to think of a very nice sentence by an artist from Japan called Ozawa who says: “Because
I hate cars, I will make art that is like a pedestrian that ignores the traffic signal.” We may not
be artists and we may not hate cars, but we are this pedestrian who ignores the traffic signal
and we also have to relate to pedestrians who ignore traffic signals. We have both these roles
and we manoeuvre in quite an intricate interpretation of the field because we have these
different actions here.

Maria de Fatima Fernades, Portugal

I would like to tell you about an experience. In the sixties in Portugal, three urban nuclei
were built in ten years by three architects who worked together. What was important about
this situation is that they worked with engineers, with biologists, with artists and with all the
specialisations that are shown here. They had the capacity to work together in a team to pro-
duce three cities together. I think they created one of the most important industrial or urban
landscapes and they did that with all these specialities, not with only one single speciality. I
think that things do not change so much. The problem we have today is the same as always. I
think there are a lot of problems that architects have had in the past that, if we look carefully,
we can see repeated today. The way to use resources and to choose them carefully, not to take
away resources and to give people spaces for both their physical and spiritual sides. We need
to work with this in mind all the time. I think that the architect could not be a specialist. If an
architect were transformed into a specialist, he or she could not do architecture.

Peter Gabrijelčič, Slovenia

How to employ and utilise our products is an interesting topic. I remember once, a commis-
sioner from the European Union came to Ljubljana University. He was not an architect. He said it
was interesting how the architects are the only profession, which still has a holistic view of their
effect, in Europe. He said the most unemployed persons are those who are oriented towards
one specialisation. This is because these specialisations develop but then they disappear.
This is one story. Let me recite another. I think that dilemma is connected to the size of the
state. I was once in Chicago where I had been invited by the Rotterdam University to be part of
a jury for the new library. Three of us had this privilege. We chose something, which resembled
a Greek temple. This Rotterdam School is oriented, with the help of Prince Charles, towards a
very classical approach to architecture. For me, this is understandable: the United States is a
huge market and they cannot find clients for themselves. I cannot imagine something like this
happening neither in Liechtenstein, for example, nor in Slovenia. In Slovenia it is necessary
to have generalists; we are too small a country to have only specialists. Or there could be one
school, possibly a private school, for a particular speciality. In lighting, for example, it is well
known that you can sell your products all over the world. The state faculty, however, should
be oriented towards generalisation, I think, but with some facility aimed at an older kind of
specialisation as I mentioned earlier.
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Spyros Amourgis, Greece

I wanted to address what Constantin said concerning the abstract in architectural education
and to comment on what he asked about the abstract value of benefits in architectural train-
ing. The abstract is essentially the level where a student learns to deal with abstract concepts,
value concepts, versus what nowadays has become quite prevalent, which is formal concepts:
I want to do a square and put a dome and so forth. Yet what is a city hall? What values does it
represent? What are you going to look at as an architect to find the appropriate form to serve
these values? The training to analyse a problem and the result and a value system and then
look for the appropriate formal expression of that, the reality, if you like, is the abstract value
that Constantin is talking about. I understand the change discussed in today’s meeting is rather
a change towards greater improvements, or corrections. If it is change simply for the sake of
change, then it is exactly what the prevalent spirit again is, that of consumerism, and then what
is new? Perhaps Pierre von Meiss is here, but as the French say, plus ça change, rien ça change.

Ramon Sastre, Spain

I have two questions for the chairman about this issue. The first one is less important, it is more
like a curiosity. In the eighth place there is “other”, and it says “please specify”, so are they speci-
fied on this list? On the original checklist there was culinary and pastry arts. Was it supposed
that someone would answer yes to this? The second point is more important. It states: “check
all that apply”. I cannot imagine that architecture is not going to apply to someone who is in,
say, restoration. Architecture may therefore be applied here too. Less than half said they do
not work in architecture, although they work in many of the fields on the list. In your opinion,
why do they consider themselves as not working in architecture?

Michael Monti, USA

This was done by another university, so I cannot defend the study or the method or anything
else there. However, I think your point is very valid. For me, the question of alternative careers
is how we define what is meant by the word “alternative”. I think in terms of certain traditional
concepts of what architectural schools are for, and what an architect is and does, historical
preservation may or may not be the same as architect; it may be considered an alternative
career. Working on fabrication, rendering could be called alternative careers or not, as could
working in services that are provided to architecture firms. I think it is therefore important to
question instantly what is meant by the term “alternative careers”.
Moreover, as I think has been said repeatedly today, including on this panel, if the model for
what an architecture school prepares is the iconic designer, whose expertise is primarily in
rendering form for space, then I think that does miss the point. There is only a small number
of people in the architecture firm who are actually in charge of the form of the building, while
the rest of the team, who also trained in an architecture school, from the people who are
doing marketing and business development to everything else, should be counted as part of
the profession. It is a function of what is most important. There were discussions with the col-
leagues from Latin America about how much time is spent on design in a curriculum and you
said that just one day a week was spent on visual analysis. I think you are provoking as much
180 as you are asking for answers, and I think that is entirely right.
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Katherine Liapi, Greece

When architects have to move to another career, or a slightly different profession, they are
hired not because they understand all the parts of the other profession, but because of their
main skills as architects. When NASA hires an architect, for example, or when in the early seven-
ties, the computer companies hired architects, they were hiring them because the architects
had those skills, which the other professionals did not have: the perception of space and many
other issues. In the same way, if a structural engineer is hired by a company that designs artifi-
cial limbs, he is not hired because he knows what artificial limbs are, but because of the main
essence of his profession, which is understanding structures. What I mean by that is that the
mainstream of the curriculum is what is needed when people are shifting and doing a differ-
ent career. That is why they are hired: for those skills they have learned. There will always be
another graphic artist who is better than an architect. But the architect understands something
more than a graphic artist.

Peter Gabrijelčič, Slovenia

But then, even after that, in his career as a graphic designer, he has some common knowledge.
It is like in primary school. Why is it that from primary school, everybody can learn poetry, for
example? It is for a common cultural platform. This common platform is necessary for every-
one. After that, in our professional life, we should have many different streams. In the case of
a renderer, the person must know something about composition. In my practice, I wanted to
try to find somebody from the design department from the academy for rendering. But it was
of no use, because the person did not have an architectural education, he did not have the
ability to express the meaning of my idea. The same applies to colours, to heating: there has
to be a level of common sense and of a common will, a common cultural wish which should
bring together all the different professionals in their careers. For this, a common education is
needed, one which is more intellectual.

Konstantinos Moraitis, Greece

This is a question not for the panel, but for Constantin. Do you think that all the colours shown
in the diagram have the same possibility of being connected? It is a provocative question. I
think that it is easier for me to work in furniture design, in landscape design or in stage design
and that in all those possibilities, there is always the word “design”. What does this mean? You
have referred to abstraction, but abstraction is not just a speciality of architects. Since the
eighteenth century we know that an integral function of human mentality is abstraction; the
physicians and the lawyers showed abstractions, as did the engineers. For natural philoso-
phers, there was abstraction. Everything, therefore, uses abstraction; what is more concrete to
architecture is the abstraction through design meaning, through a certain kind of simulation
and this kind of simulation is graphic simulation. When we refer to the difference between
Marcus Cruz and other colleagues from other countries, we are referring to different types
of simulation. That was the point of my question. Innovation cannot be validated without a
certain kind of simulation; we have changed our way of simulating reality. That means there
are different types of innovation according to different types of simulation. The connection
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

between different kinds of professions is the connection between these different languages;
this is the same problem as with last year’s subject.
Last year we had a professional who was a pedagogue and who spoke about teaching in
architecture; he was someone who has never designed anything. The final conclusion of this
presentation was that I need to have a good relationship with my students. That actually hap-
pens in all of the universities, in all faculties, in the School of Architecture, the School of Theology
and so on. I think that what the difference is between us and other specialities is that there
is a certain type of simulation that concerns graphic simulation and that has been organised
through many centuries of work. Nowadays this simulation has changed drastically. This means
that different types of possible innovation are now possible.

Neslihan Dostoglu, Turkey

I would like to make one comment about this diagram: I think it is really impossible to teach
all these different colours to students. However, I think that in architecture schools, if we teach
our students how to learn and how to ask questions, I think this would resolve many of these
issues. My last comment and question is to Peter Gabrijelčič: I do not know if I misunderstood
your comment about Prince Charles. Perhaps you chose him because he is interested in that
type of classical, Greek building because he demanded that type of building.

Peter Gabrijelčič, Slovenia

The school at Notre Dame is oriented towards classical architecture. This is what Prince Charles
admires and that is why he also supports this school. That is the connection. But that school
with their “masters” who are oriented towards that classical, ancient style, cannot find clients.
I was trying to make the point that in such a huge country, they cannot find clients like that.
This is not saying that specialization is orientation. I would like to make just one comment.
Three months ago, we organized in our school a presentation of new, growing companies,
young companies in Slovenia. There were six companies with young directors of between thirty-
five and forty years old. The students asked these directors how they chose their employees.
All the directors answered, it is not important that the employees have any particular special
knowledge, they should be clever, curious and fair. They should be able to work in a team, have
empathy and after a year, they should have adapted to our job. That is why I said what I did at
the beginning, regarding what I wish from our school: to have a kind of “off-shore” area, in which
those young people can develop their ethical attitudes, their way of thinking and that is all.
I am not talking about education; I am afraid of the word “education”. Everyone appears to think
that education means intellectual. It does not. Intellectual means having the ability to jump
onto a high level of abstract thinking, because on that level you can solve problems, not on
the site; then you can jump down. This is what I think is missing today; I believe it is missing
because people are surfing the Internet when they are designing a project for school.
There are two types of memories: the in-depth memory, which you can get from reading books,
doing something with your hands and with your mind, slowly, and then a kind of sediment
settles in your soul and after a while it becomes part of your being, part of your attitudes, part
of your decision-making process. The short-term memory, which we all use with the computer
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

is when we are trying to find some data on the internet. But this is a short-cut. I therefore think
that we must develop that kind and so I agree that at times our curricula must be reduced to
the basic important things, in order to give people time. Even at my school, everyone is running
around all the time; no one has time to think and to stop and solve the problem through until
the end. I think this is very important. After that, the students can finish school quite quickly
and go into practice, when they can become oriented to something special.

Neslihan Dostoglu, Turkey

I would like to make one more comment about this point. Ethical standing is very important. In
Turkey, as academicians in architecture, we are criticising architects who are making replicas of
what Mimar Sinan did 500 years ago. I think as academicians in architecture, we should teach,
or try to instil in our students the idea that they should interpret history, not by copying it, but
by interpreting it. In his speech last night, Marcos Cruz talked about the different movements; it
was an interpretation of history, it was not a replica. This ethical standing is important for reject-
ing people like Prince Charles saying that this is not the right way to approach architecture.

Peter Gabrijelčič, Slovenia

Or it may be the right way, for some people. This is diversity.

Nicolau Brandao, Portugal

I would like to recount just two short stories, which relate to this. First of all, architects work
in such different fields, as they do in Portugal. This is mostly because there are small gaps in
the labour market that are not filled by the professions. It is as simple as that. Strangely, I saw
their law; I do not know if there is some architect who puts law in judgement, but I do not
see there doctors, for example, because the doctors will not allow other people to practice
their profession. Usually, we do not allow someone to do the architect’s profession. It is very
important, therefore, to see how the other professions are organised.
In Portugal, there are many architects doing graphic design. But for designers nowadays, there
are studies in graphic design in the universities, with a licence, with a Master’s, with doctor-
ates. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they are not organised either, but they do not allow the
architects to do graphic design because it is their field. To clarify, there are some out there who
are allowed, although it obviously does not mean the culinary. I find this very funny, since I am
a culinary lover! It is very important to see where it happens. I will tell these two short stories
to finish. To begin with, as Spyros said, it must have your attention, because it is interesting to
see the other side of the problem.
We architects also look from our own side. In Portugal there has been a very long standing
fight between engineers and architects concerning the professional fields in which they are
allowed to work. In the faculty, the engineers always demand that they have the right to do
projects, just because they have in their university curriculum a discipline, for two hours a
week, for one year, called architecture. From this, they are allowed to do architecture! Why
not? I was once invited to teach this discipline in the university, to the engineers. What I was
told before the course was, you are going to take the discipline, but you must be careful. It is 183
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

important to let them know that they are not able to do architecture. This is the most important
thing they must know!
The other story is as follows. There is an architect, a very good one, I may say, whose father has
a shop in the centre of town and works with indoor products, by which I mean handles, locks
and so forth. He works in this field. As it is not easy to find a job as an architect in an office, this
man works in the shop, working and selling the products. This is his current profession. I usually
say that he makes more for Portuguese architecture than most architects. Why is this? Because
when Siza for instance, or Eduardo Souto de Moura or others, want to make a specially designed
handle, all the architects know to go to him, and he is the one who translates the intentions of
the architect to the manufacturer. In Portugal we do not have an industry developed to do that.
His role is therefore in the field of architecture in some way, and he plays a very important role.
Otherwise, I do not think that Portuguese curriculum should have something about making
handles or how to sell a nail.

Michael Monti, USA

They call it a discipline because it governs your actions and it governs the actions of others.

Constantin Spiridonidis, Greece

I would like to draw your attention to the possible risk of the attitude of standing in front of
these colours and saying, we are fantastic, we can do everything here and the education that
we offer can cover all these kinds of professional activities. Admiring our capacities to do
everything on this wide spectrum of professional activities, we suddenly realise that in Europe
over the last twenty years, 250 schools of interior design have appeared, 300 schools of urban
design and planning, other schools of landscape design, along with schools of restoration and
preservation have also appeared. All these schools create graduates who enter the marketplace
and who compete with architects, even though they have these fantastic capacities. There is
therefore a question of responsibility of the schools: how will they assure a competitive version
of this potential version of professional activities?
I think that there we need serious strategies; we need to have a strategy to deal with these
virtual professional activities. Naturally, I am not talking about pastry artists! Other things are
there, though, which could escape and we would stay admiring all these colours representing
possibility while at the same time, our graduates will no longer be competitive in the market
because other specialisations will be organised; these could be, as I said, something like interior
design, and no-one would be able to do this without having the licence for it. I think this is the
risk of over-emphasising generality, or of a general education. We have to take this seriously
into account because we are facing this problem.
I was recently in the school of Alfonso Gomez in the School of Architecture in Santiago, in
the new Department of Design. It is called Interior Design, but graphic design is taught, as
is furniture design and industrial design – and this department was much more active than
the School of Architecture! It was something new, it had access to the city, the department
collaborated with the city and did projects there, while the architects were discussing things,
which had nothing to do with the society around them. They gave the impression that it was
Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

something that was the old belonging to a mediocre appearance. I think it is something that we
have to take into account in the design of our strategies; it is something, which must be done.

Peter Gabrijelčič, Slovenia

Yet there are two different things. One is the architect: a generalist. The schools have to teach
this, every School of Architecture has to do this. In a school there should then be departments,
which are not regulated professions, for example, lighting specialists in architecture. And this
should not have the same rights as regulated architecture. That means in the same school,
there should be different departments and some of them should be oriented towards a certain
speciality. In our school now, there is urban design, which is not a regulated profession, but the
main field is architecture. When we are talking about architecture, an architect is somebody
who has that overview and that holistic knowledge. But there should be other orientations in
different departments of the school.

Maria de Fatima Fernades, Portugal

I think that the problem is not that of whether or not to give the students knowledge in spe-
cialities – that is surely something necessary. But we need to teach them a methodology, how
to use the different specialities, and on each occasion where they have different problems in
their professional life, they can go to take the knowledge necessary to resolve the problems.
The school needs to give different information and the methodology and instruments to do
anything that is related to creating space. The school should not only teach students speciali-
sations, but it should inform students and provide them with the instruments and with the
method to do anything that society requires the architect to resolve.

Constantin Spiridonidis, Greece

Allow me just to clarify slightly what I was saying. Using the same example, there was that
School of Design and it had a department of Interior Design, of Furniture Design, of Graphic
Design and another design department, whose name I cannot remember. The main concern
of the Head of the School was how to keep these departments together in order to avoid each
of them becoming a separate school. That was a concern. Because the strategy was to keep
these departments together, the curriculum of the school was structured in such a way that
it did not leave the specialisation until the end, but there were different lines in the middle of
the studies, which at the end were once again unified, in order to enable students to have a
common degree but one which incorporated these different views.
I think that was an interesting strategic manipulation of the curriculum and of the structure of
the school because the concern was that if specialisation were left to the end, even if the same
common diploma was given at the end, eventually there would be a risk of having some kind
of split in the organisation and of there being separate schools, seeing that there was already
a tendency to go that way. The idea was that graphic designers, for instance, have nothing to
do with interior designers. That was something I found interesting.

Session 3 Managing Change: Potential Roles and Professional Activities for Architects

Peter Gabrijelčič, Slovenia

There should not only have been the one common diploma for all of them, that of the general-
ist, because otherwise there is no respect for the eleven points of the EU Directive – of which
there are more now. I am not saying that this is right, this kind of procedure, but the holistic
knowledge for a person who has the title of architect is important. For the others, there should
be the title of architectural specialities in whatever speciality they have chosen. It is not equal.
This causes great damage on a site: this is something we all know. We know this from Austria:
in Austria there is the situation where civil engineers have some rights to design small build-
ings, which is awful. Colleagues have told me this. It is the same as a Geometer in Italy. They
do not have such training or such knowledge as architects have and so they should not have
the same responsibilities.

Pierre von Meiss, Switzerland

Your chart is very interesting and I would say it shows that more than three-quarters of the
colours in the diagram are actually different, but three-quarters are also still part of architecture,
such as urban design, for example. What would be really interesting would be to do the same
survey of an Italian school. It would be completely different because for many years they were
producing a general cultural education through architecture. Many of the graduates coming
out did not even think of doing architecture; they were educated, capable of preparing courses
in history or drawing for high schools, and many of them went into teaching. I was told that at
one time, those who were working in state schools were in the majority. That has now changed,
because the government asked the Italian schools to concentrate more on their subject and
also to develop the students more as architects and not only as cultural beings. It would be
interesting to do such a survey; I would also say that in Europe huge differences would be found
between countries. I do not know how many years after that was, ten years after graduation,
let us say; if you take Scandinavia or Switzerland, then the larger countries such as Italy, a very
different picture would emerge from each country. We do not even know how different these
pictures are; we have no idea of this! I do not know of any survey, which has been done on a
European level. Was there a lot of money to do this? A survey also takes time.

Michael Monti, USA

I do not know who does have a lot of money for that! There is no question that it would be
valuable for schools, though. It would be interesting to continue the debate as to whether there
should be one architecture degree or many architecture degrees at a later time.

Session 4
Managing Change:
Modernized Directive
and new School Profiles
Over the next months, the European Parliament will vote for the mod-
ernization of the Directive for the recognition of professional qualifica-
tions. This revision of the Directive 2005/36/EC will envisage two different
profiles of an architect. The one is created after a no-less-than-four-year
full-time study, accompanied by a certificate attesting to the completion
of two years of traineeship (4+2). The other is created after a total of at
least five years of full-time study without any traineeship (5+0). These two
profiles will replace the one advocated by the existing Directive, which
was the four-year-full-time study without any traineeship (4+0). Schools
of architecture will have the legal obligation and responsibility to decide
which profile they will follow and how their graduates will compete with
one another.
Are we facing a new policy to reduce the duration of study time?
Are we facing a new strategy to delegate part of architectural education
to professional practice?
How will this change affect the Bologna process?
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

Keynote by
Howard Davies, Brussels, Belgium

Animated by
James Horan, Dublin, Ireland
Constantin Spiridonidis, Thessaloniki, Greece
Herman Neuckermans, Leuven, Belgium

Howard Davies
Professional qualifications: the amended
Directive and the Bologna Process
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

I have one thing in common with the other keynote speakers – a wish to express my gratitude
to you all for your kind invitation and hospitality, in particular to Constantin and Maria. It really
is a great honour and a great delight to come to the lovely city of Chania and to address this
eminent assembly of heads of schools of architecture.
However, there my resemblance with other speakers ends. Unlike them, I have no background
in architecture, no presentation with eloquent visuals, and no day-to-day sense of the problems
which you are experiencing in your schools.
My topic is the articulation of the Bologna Process and the EU Directive on the recognition of
professional qualifications. In the past two or three years, I have met associations of medical
doctors, nurses and midwives, veterinary surgeons and pharmacists. As you know, architects
also figure in the group of seven so-called sectoral professions. The seven have a privileged
status in EU legislation, because the cross-border recognition of their basic training qualifica-
tion is automatic. Architecture, however, is an exception, in the sense that compliance with
the Directive is not compulsory. That is to say, universities and schools should worry about
compliance only if they intend their graduates to have the opportunity to work in other EU
Member States.
Before I begin, allow me to say how much I’ve enjoyed meeting your guests from Latin America.
I’m very interested in the efforts of the Portuguese public universities and the Brazilian federal
universities to establish the mutual recognition of architecture and engineering degrees; first
the academic recognition, then the professional. I want to come back later to the relationship
of academic and professional recognition in Europe, but first let me introduce myself and give
you an overview of my subject.
I am a senior adviser to the European University Association. EUA is based in Brussels, but I work
out of London, where I maintain contact with the worlds of higher education and the regulated
professions. I sit on the Europe committees of Universities UK (the British rectors’ conference)
and the Nursing and Midwifery Council, a regulatory body. I intend to say a little about EUA
and its interest in the Directive, before moving on to features of the current proposals which
are of particular relevance to architecture.
Throughout my presentation, I will base my remarks on the assumption – which I take the
opportunity to state clearly at the outset – that it is in the public interest, in terms of clarity and
transparency, that the Directive be fully aligned with the structures, procedures and practices
put in place by the Bologna Process. Hopefully this will have happened by the time the Direc-
tive is next reviewed – in 2018. This, then, will be the EUA perspective. In a way, I hope that
you do not share it. EUA cannot be as sensitive to some of the difficulties as you will be – and
I look forward to hearing your reactions.
EUA has over 800 institutional members in 47 countries, together with 34 national rectors’
conferences. It aims to be the voice of Europe’s universities and has managed to impose itself
as a major player during the past decade, as higher education has risen rapidly up the agenda
of the EU institutions. EUA is concerned with research policy and funding, with institutional
governance, with quality assurance, and with the dimensions of higher education which are
associated with the Bologna Process. That is to say: the transparency of systems, structures
and qualifications; the mobility of staff, students and researchers; student-centred learning;
internationalisation; and the recognition of qualifications.
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

In all of these Bologna policy areas, EUA is able to exert pressure, thanks to its status within
the Process. It is one of eight consultative members and has seats on the Bologna Follow-up
Group (BFUG) and the various working groups. It is these which conduct the business of the
Process, setting up and reporting to the periodic ministerial summits. Currently, BFUG is acting
on recommendations made by the 47 ministers in Bucharest in 2012; and there will be formal
report-back and further recommendations in Yerevan in 2015.
It is important to point out that EUA has no tradition of disciplinary focus. It has no specific
policy position on architecture. In the Board and Council of EUA institutions are represented by
the rectors speaking as rectors, rather than as academics with disciplinary affiliations. Some of
them may be architects, although they are likely to be far outnumbered by engineers, medics,
lawyers and management experts.
Our interest in the Directive on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications goes back to
2005. This year marked the half-way point in the construction – by the Bologna Process – of the
European Higher Education Area (EHEA). It was also the half-way point in the Lisbon Strategy’s
project of building ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge economy in the world’, a
project which had just been re-energised by the Wim Kok Report. Finally, 2005 marked the end
of the legislative process which ushered in Directive 2005/36/EC.
In EUA, we made the assumption that, during the drafting process, the Directive would, at
least to some extent, have been aligned with the increasingly well-defined profile of European
higher education.
We were disappointed. DG Internal Market was much more concerned with streamlining the
existing legislation on professional qualifications, accommodating the then new Member States
into the acquis communautaire, and tailoring the features of the Directive to the requirements
of the controversial Services Directive. You will no doubt remember the Bolkestein Directive.
A move by the European Parliament to bring the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) into
the framework of the Directive was refused out of hand by the Commission. In the end, nothing
in the Directive demonstrated any recognition of the evolution of European higher education,
despite the fact that many of the professional qualifications were delivered by universities.
At the time of drafting, dialogue between DG Internal Market and DG Education and Culture
was virtually non-existent. I know, because I talked to them both. The dramatic move of DG
EAC from the periphery to the centre of the Commission’s strategic thinking came too late.
In 2007, as soon as the Directive had come into force, EUA convened a meeting of Brussels-
based stakeholders – academic, professional, student and regulatory bodies, European Commis-
sion and Parliament – to examine ways in which any future review (notably the one scheduled
for 2012) could accommodate the features of the EHEA. By 2009, we had convinced DG Internal
Market that the Directive needed to be ‘re-engineered’. This was the term used by the Head of
Unit concerned and I was interested to hear Alfredo Gomez say yesterday that the term has
now passed out of the discourse on innovation.
This was nevertheless a break-through. Thereafter, the Commission set in motion a long series
of studies, consultations, evaluations and experience reports; these led to the text now nearing
the end of the legislative process. Of course, the Commission paid heed to the views of the
Competent Authorities (CAs) – the ministries and the regulatory bodies – but it also took on
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

board much of what the professional bodies, and through them the academic bodies, had to
say – on competence-based curricula and the updating of the minimum training conditions.
Let me now, before turning to some of the features that are architecture-specific, briefly indi-
cate the state of play in the legislative and Bologna processes.
Where are we now in the legislative process? Agreement has been reached, by Commission,
Council of Ministers and Parliament in the so-called trilogue meetings which are designed to
avoid the need for a second reading in the Parliament.
It was always likely that there would be agreement: all three principal EU institutions saw the
revision of the Directive as one of the key steps in gearing up the Single Market and dragging
the EU out of economic crisis.
But the legislative process is not yet complete. The Committee of Permanent Representatives
(COREPER) and the Internal Market and Consumer Affairs Committee (IMCO) of the European
Parliament agreed the compromise text before the summer recess. But it still has to be finalised
by the Council of Ministers and by the European Parliament in plenary session. This is likely
to take place in October. We can safely say that by the autumn – only ten months behind
schedule – the revised Directive will be in place.
Where are we in the Bologna Process? When the 47 ministers of higher education met in Bucha-
rest, they stressed the importance of widening access to higher education, quality assurance,
employability, and student mobility. On the question of recognition they had strong views.
They committed themselves to reviewing the extent to which their national legislations were
in line with the Lisbon Recognition Convention, a treaty which the vast majority had signed
and ratified. Behind this commitment was the awareness that a number of higher education
institutions were acting in breach of the treaty, on the grounds that institutional autonomy
gave them the freedom to deny recognition of academic qualification whenever it suited
their purposes.
Accordingly, and in support of what the Lisbon Convention defines as fair recognition, ministers
indicated three ways forward:
1. They declared themselves ‘willing to work together towards the automatic recognition of
comparable academic degrees, building on the tools of the Bologna framework, as a long-
term goal of the EHEA’. They set up a so-called Pathfinder Group of 10 countries to carry
this forward on a long-term and fairly informal basis. The countries include some which
already have or which will soon have systems of sub-regional automatic recognition, e.g.
the Nordic countries, Netherlands and Flanders.
2. Secondly, ministers welcomed the publication of the European Area of Recognition (EAR)
Manual, designed to guide national recognition agencies towards the adoption of common
principles and procedures. EUA is currently working with Dutch NUFFIC to produce a ver-
sion of the Manual tailored to the needs of admissions officers and credential evaluators
in the higher education institutions.
3. Thirdly, ministers encouraged the sector to bring recognition decisions taken by institu-
tions into the ambit of agreed European quality assurance procedures.

192 In addition, ministers specifically mentioned the recognition of professional qualifications:

Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

We welcome the clear reference to ECTS, to the European Qualifications Framework

and to learning outcomes in the European Commission’s proposal for a revision of
the EU Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications. We underline the
importance of taking appropriate account of these elements in recognition decisions.

So what can we say at this juncture?

1. First, that in 2012 Bologna and the Directive have intersected officially and publicly for
the first time
2. Secondly, that the Bologna Process aspires to the automaticity that is characteristic of the
sectoral regime in the Directive
3. Thirdly, that these developments are in line with the call made by Mario Monti for a wider
range of automatic recognition to be enshrined in EU legislation on professional qualifica-

Taking these three points together, the convergence of Bologna and the Directive might seem
both politically feasible and imminent, but all is not so simple. As we have seen, there is
resistance in some institutions to the transparency of academic qualifications. In Bologna,
transparency is a virtue: it facilitates mobility; it drives up quality; it encourages cross-border
joint curriculum development; it is a pre-condition of automatic recognition. And of course,
it makes misrecognition harder.
We are here in the presence of a paradox. For the transparency brought by Bologna has intro-
duced a degree of opacity into the operation of the Directive. Bologna has promoted diver-
sity… and diversity has made it more difficult to monitor compliance. The Commission, in
proposing amendments to the 2005 Directive, has found itself in a difficult position: it is bound
to monitor compliance, in order to sustain the credibility of automatic recognition; moreover,
it cannot and does not wish to limit diversity. In order to render this diversity automatically
recognisable, it has had recourse to the Bologna transparency tools – the tools developed by
the very process which made automatic recognition more difficult in the first place.
The best way to move away from these fairly abstract considerations is to see how they express
themselves in respect of the basic training programme in architecture. I propose to comment
on the following: course duration; traineeships; ECTS; learning outcomes; qualifications frame-
works; and quality assurance.

Course duration

First, the question of course duration. The 2005 Directive (Article 46.1) offered two possibili-
ties: a basic training programme of four full-time study years OR a programme of six years, of
which three had to be full-time. For the amended Directive, the Commission first proposed a
different option: either four full-time study years plus a terminal traineeship of two years OR
five study years plus a one-year traineeship, making six years either way. This was applauded
by the Architects’ Council of Europe (ACE), which, suspecting that Commission and certain
large Member States were conspiring to retain the four-year requirement, had vehemently
attacked Commissioner Barnier’s ‘apparent deregulatory crusade’. 193
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

However, the legislators have now reached a compromise position, in which the option is five
full-time years OR four of study plus two of practical training. ACE, which has sustained a strong
lobby throughout the consultative and legislative process, regards this as falling ‘far short’ of
the 5+2 combination which it prefers, although an undoubted improvement on the existing
requirement. As I understand it, the compromise sustains the credibility of European architects
in the global labour market – which would otherwise have been threatened.
So, 5+0 OR 4+2 will be the alternative minimum durations of basic training. You will know,
much better than I, what differences in national requirements this covers, which countries have
historically delivered courses of below this minimum duration and which have traditionally
exceeded it. You will know how the change may improve, protect or expose funding patterns,
affordability to students, and movements of students across internal EU borders in search of
better or cheaper or shorter training programmes. You will also know how many different
ways there are of expressing 5+0 and 4+2 in terms of Bachelor and Master, and integrated
programmes. I look forward to hearing your views.


As far as the traineeship is concerned, this is something that architecture shares with pharmacy
– with the difference that it is an option (4+2) for architecture, but mandatory in pharmacy,
where it appears as a 6-month placement which may be either formative or terminal.
The Commission was insistent on incorporating into the amended Directive one particular item
of case law – the principle laid down in the Morgenbesser judgement – namely, that Member
States cannot deny the right of citizens to complement a qualification obtained in one MS with
a traineeship undertaken in another.
The EU institutions have now agreed that such traineeships fall within the scope of the Direc-
tive, whether they are remunerated or not. Moreover, not only must they be covered by the
relevant legislation on working conditions, they must also be framed within a contract which
specifies learning objectives and tasks.
In the case of architecture, they cannot occur before the successful completion of the first
three years of full-time study. They may be supervised in any MS, but the supervisor must be
approved by the Competent Authority (CA) in the home MS; it is also the responsibility of the
CA to evaluate the traineeship.


It is now agreed that course duration may henceforth be expressed as ECTS points. As you are
aware, one ECTS credit corresponds to 25-30 hours of study, where study refers to all learning
activities and not just hours of contact with professors. 60 credits are normally required for the
completion of one academic year – of study or of traineeship.
ECTS is available as an option in this way to all seven sectoral professions. It cannot be man-
datory, because even in the Bologna Process signatory countries are asked to commit only to
the use of a credit and accumulation system which is compatible with ECTS. Not all countries
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

use ECTS for accumulation, even if they may use it for transfer, for example in the ERASMUS
Programme. And not all the Bologna countries have integrated credit systems.
From the EUA point of view, none of this represents a problem. ECTS has wide currency and is
largely uncontroversial. Most of the basic training providers are higher education institutions;
most are well versed in the mechanics of credit accumulation and transfer. However, in terms
of the convergence of the Bologna Process and the Directive, all this is of great significance. For
the first time, one of the principal Bologna mobility instruments figures – if only as an option
– in EU legislation and in a policy area in which the EU has exclusive legal competence… that
is to say, the internal market.
Inevitably, the question of legal certainty will arise in cases which are in dispute. With this in
mind, EUA is currently participating in a Bologna Working Group, chaired by the Commission
and charged with updating the ECTS Users’ Guide. The existing version dates back to 2009.
We will make a first draft next October. It will be couched in terms which make it clear that
the number of user groups now goes well beyond academics, university administrators and
students. The new text will aim to achieve user-friendliness appropriate to employers, pro-
fessional and regulatory bodies, quality assurance agencies, and all recognition authorities,
whether academic or professional. The new Guide will contain a section on the revised Direc-
tive, but this will be drafted only when the legislative process is complete and the contents
of the Directive are absolutely clear.

Learning outcomes

Before I turn to quality assurance, let me pause on the topic of learning outcomes. Until the
Commission acknowledged the need to re-engineer the Directive, it was insistent that its speci-
fications of the minimum agreed course contents would be purely input based, i.e. principally
the bodies of knowledge which professionals must be expected to command on graduation.
The job of the Commission, it was said, was to ensure that a minimum agreed knowledge base
underpinned the practice of mobile professionals. How the training programmes were actu-
ally delivered was the province of the training providers, of the educational traditions within
which they worked, and of the professional and regulatory bodies which oversaw the training.
Let us look at the 11 points which, in the 2005 Directive, encapsulate the expectations which
EU law placed on architects. Five refer to domains of knowledge; four refer to ‘understanding’,
with the strong implication that such understanding can proceed from efficient exposition of
domains of knowledge by qualified teaching staff. The remaining two effectively duplicate each
other: the ‘ability to create architectural designs…’ and the ‘necessary design skills’… So let us
say that a mere 10% of the eleven points specify competences which are testable in practice.
The proposed new text is interesting. In place of the preamble which introduces the list of
‘knowledge and skills’, we have one which presents a list of ‘knowledge, skills and competences’
(Article 46). In fact, however, there is only one change, which adds a sustainable development
framework to the body of knowledge required for successfully protecting buildings against
hostile climatic conditions. No new specific competence has been added at all!
Why should this be? It is simply because the ‘experience reports’ gathered from competent
Authorities by the Commission in 2010 showed that all were happy with the existing formu-
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

lation. One or two suggested that sustainable development might usefully be mentioned.
Hence its appearance. The Commission was not inclined to argue, given that its position had
always been that, generally speaking, the 11 points had been drafted with such a degree of
abstraction that they did not represent any impediment to the evolution of architecture as a
discipline or to innovative course design.
In any case, ministers on the Competitiveness Council, who reached the agreement with Parlia-
ment following the trilogue meetings in the spring of this year, were also heavily inclined to
accept the views of their Competent Authorities – in some cases, their own ministries – and to
retain the existing formulation with the sole amendment that I have mentioned.
ACE, moreover, showed no inclination to modify the 11 points. In its response to the Commis-
sion’s 2011 consultation, ACE declares that the 11 points ‘continue to appear robust after 20
years of use’.
I could mention a further advantage of retaining the 11 points – at least, as the Commission sees
it. It would be cheaper, since changing them significantly would entail the mass re-notification
of all programmes wishing to be compliant. And notification carries administrative costs.
Of course, it should also be stressed that the 11 points are underpinned – for some training
providers – by the competence-based curricula outlined in the architectural contribution to
the Tuning Project and in the ENHSA III thematic network project which followed up on Tuning
between 2007 and 2010. But such curricula are not required by the Directive.
So architecture is not the best example of how the emphasis of the text of the Directive has
shifted from inputs to outputs. We have to look elsewhere. Look, for example, at general care
nurses. The 2005 Directive listed two bodies of knowledge, two categories of ‘experience’ and
one ‘ability’. In the amended text, eight highly specified competences have been added.
It’s worth recalling some of the factors which have spurred the development of competence-
based learning:
1. The promotion of student-centred learning by the Bologna Process – in the face of the
persistence in some signatory countries of secondary systems characterised by rote learn-
ing and of higher education systems dominated by the professorial lecture
2. The employability imperative and related factors, such as the development of enterprise
education throughout the curriculum
3. Particularly in the sectoral professions, anxieties about patient safety, notably in profes-
sions with high volumes of cross-border migration and service delivery (e.g. general care
4. The pressure on universities in publicly-funded mass higher education systems to dem-
onstrate their accountability to tax-payers

These drivers have made their presence felt in the current legislative process. The phrase ‘knowl-
edge, skills and competences’ now routinely replaces previous references either to knowledge
alone or to knowledge and skills. In the General System, aptitude tests now explicitly test
competences, as well as knowledge and skills; the consideration of substantial difference has
to take on board skills and competences acquired in lifelong learning and formally validated;
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

Article 21 on notification and Article 22 on Continuing Professional Development both now

explicitly refer to knowledge, skills and competences.

Qualifications frameworks

In this connection, we must note the appearance of the European Qualifications Framework
(EQF) in Article 49a2d on Common Training Frameworks. It would seem that the Commission
has been less constrained here by the weight of Competent Authority experience and opin-
ion. It is the push for more automatic recognition which is critical here. Hence the proposal
– adopted by Council and Parliament – that professional bodies might be allowed to suggest
competence-based curricula (‘common sets of knowledge, skills and competences’) which,
if taken up by one third of Member States (i.e. 10) will constitute curricula designed at Euro-
pean level and referenced to the EQF. Remember that the EQF itself derived from the Dublin
Descriptors which defined the generic competences attaching to each of the Bologna Cycles.
EUA’s wish, not granted thus far, is that the EQF replace the 5-level grid used in the General
System to measure substantial difference and to determine appropriate aptitude tests or
adaptation periods. In general, Competent Authorities displayed no willingness to change.
Partly, this was because in 2011, when the consultation took place, the EQF and its attend-
ant national qualifications frameworks, were not in place. Although the majority of countries
have now developed national qualifications frameworks, only 9 out of 31 have gone live on
the Commission’s NQF comparison portal. This is reminder that, however far Bologna and the
Directive have converged, there is still a considerable distance to be covered.

Quality assurance

As I have indicated, the Commission has become more and more preoccupied by compliance
and the procedures for notification of compliant courses. Its ability to monitor the situation
became much more difficult as a result of the Bologna Process. In countries which previously
had enjoyed tighter control over curriculum design, a higher degree of academic freedom
effectively allowed each university to introduce innovative and distinctive programmes not
replicated in any other institution.
From the point of view of Bologna, this development is excellent; far from harmonising, the
Process values diversity at system level and at programme level. From the point of view of the
Commission, it was clear that problems might arise. Accordingly, it proposed that in each MS an
accredited body or ministry should regularly report on the compliance of training programmes.
The Parliament (IMCO) went a step further, recommending that MSs submit quinquennial
reports on CPD, while at the same time CPD providers would be evaluated by quality assurance
or accreditation agencies listed on the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR). There is
no logical reason why it should not have made the same recommendation in respect of the
basic training programmes.
In fact, the proposed recourse to quality assurance or accreditation agencies has been taken
out of the text. We are left with a number of questions. What sort of quality assurance covers
the use of ECTS to the point of giving legal certainty? What QA procedures cover CPD provi-
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

sion and the foreign supervision of training placements? What QA procedures underwrite the
validity of the notification procedure? What, indeed, is the notification procedure?
To put it another way … Is what currently exists adequate? No. In the Bologna Process, we are
building confidence in a quality culture that extends across the EHEA – but this work is not yet
finished. Principles and procedures of external and internal quality assurance are in place, but
have still to be fleshed out. The so-called ESG (Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance
in the European Higher Education Area) are in the course of revision and the agreed recom-
mendations will go to ministers only in 2015 in Yerevan. They are likely to include a stronger
focus on learning outcomes and on academic recognition.
We are left with a degree of tension. The visibly increasing diversity of course content creates
greater uncertainty regarding compliance. One solution is for sectoral bodies operating at Euro-
pean level to develop credible quality assurance and accreditation procedures, supported by
professional consensus and by membership of ENQA and/or of EQAR. The veterinary surgeons
are proceeding along this route, but there are far fewer institutions delivering basic training
in veterinary science than in architecture – and, in any case, for the veterinarians compliance
is mandatory.
Another solution is for the Directive to require higher education institutions, via the Member
State authorities, to monitor and to notify compliance – through their internal quality assurance
procedures. Politically, this is no doubt too difficult to contemplate, because of the different
levels of EU competence regarding higher education.

Comitology and consultation

At this point I should be approaching my conclusion. But there is no conclusion. The EU legisla-
tive process has no ending; it merely goes quiet and loses visibility for a while. And the EHEA
itself is still a work in progress. The convergence of Bologna and the Directive has therefore
some distance still to go. Bologna will continue to evolve and to strengthen. Quality assurance
and qualifications frameworks are obvious examples of incomplete reforms. Will the Directive
also change in the intervening period, in such a way as to accelerate the convergence?
Let us imagine that the amended Directive is enacted in the autumn of 2013. It could come
into force in 2015 after a transposition period of two years. It could be reviewed again in 2018.
What happens in the intervening period depends on two things: comitology and consultation.
Following the coming into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009, new legislative procedures will
inform the operation of the amended Directive. The new comitology provides two instruments
which can modify the legal text without waiting for the next scheduled review. These are the
implementing acts and the delegated acts.
The implementing acts concern the putting into effect of measures spelt out in the Directive.
They create the legal authority necessary for MSs to enshrine particular requirements in their
own national legislation. Examples in the case concerning us here are the mechanics of the
European Professional Card (EPC), its accommodation in the Internal Market Information sys-
tem (IMI), and the putting in place of the alert mechanism which is designed to disseminate
information regarding professional incompetence and malpractice. The implementing acts
allow the Commission to proceed with these items of business, subject to the oversight of a
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

Committee composed of MS representatives. Although the Commission chairs the meetings

of the Committee, it has no right of vote.
At the same time, delegated acts allow the Commission to modify so-called non-essential
elements of the Directive. Both Council and Parliament nevertheless have power of veto over
whatever measures the Commission might propose in this direction – and both can revoke
the decision to delegate. Examples from the amended Directive are: introducing new medical
and dental specialties; updating the knowledge and skills itemised in the Articles dealing with
the sectoral professions; introducing common training frameworks; and updating the various
lists contained in Annex V. These are non-essential in the sense that they render the Directive
more relevant to the circumstances which it is designed to address, without changing the
underlying logic of recognition which informs it.
Where delegated acts are concerned, there is no duty laid on the Commission to consult the
Committee. Article 58a reads as follows:
“The Commission will, when preparing the delegated acts referred to in Article 58a(2),
[…] carry out appropriate and transparent consultations well in advance, in particu-
lar with experts from competent authorities and bodies, professional associations
and educational establishments of all the Member States, and where appropriate
with experts from social partners." (my emphasis)
We should all note this. There will be scope for lobbying, with a view to accommodating within
the text of the Directive, and once the EHEA is better consolidated, a greater deployment of
ECTS, of EQF and of Europe-wide quality assurance provision.
We have to remain alert to the possibilities of intervention to promote our sectoral interests
– EUA for higher education in general and ENHSA for architecture education in particular.

Postscript, January 2014

The amended Directive duly passed into EU law on January 18 2014. Member States have two
years in which to transpose it into their national or regional legislations. The text consists of a
list of amendments to Directive 2005/36/EC. As a temporary measure, it has been published as
2013/55/EU and is available at
In due course, the Commission will post a consolidated version on its website at http://ec.europa.
The concluding stages of the legislative process have not thrown up any dramatic surprises. The
minimum length of the agreed basic training programme is confirmed – at either five full-time
academic years or four years plus two years of traineeship. Also confirmed is the optional use of
ECTS points to express this duration.
The amended Directive continues to stress the importance of the quality of supervision of trainee-
ships undertaken abroad, but the requirement that this be managed at European level has been
dropped. The Directive now insists only that Competent Authorities publish guidelines on how
supervision is to be provided. 199
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

Similar dilution has taken place in respect of continuing professional development. Despite con-
siderable pressure to locate legal authority for CPD at European level, it remains a Member State
responsibility. Governments must nevertheless report to the Commission, by January 2016, on how
they ‘encourage’ CPD provision.
The insertion of the word ‘competences’ into the phrase ‘knowledge and skills’ is retained, but the
only change to the ‘eleven points’ is the reference to sustainable development mentioned earlier
in my article.
The amended Directive is due to be reviewed again in 2019, but – as I suggested previously – this
does not mean that nothing will happen between now and then. On the contrary, the new legislative
processes (implementing acts and delegated acts) allow for considerable change to be introduced.
It will therefore be important for ENHSA to monitor developments and to lobby for any improve-
ments which it considers desirable.
For a detailed summary of all amendments of significance to higher education institutions, read-
ers are invited to consult EUA’s briefing note, which can be accessed via

Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

Discussion on the lecture

animated by James Horan, Constantin Spiridonidis, Herman Neuckermans

James Horan, Ireland

First of all, I would like to say thank you for a very clear, concise presentation on what in
fact is a difficult and complicated subject. I suppose the most important thing that crossed
my mind listening to the presentation is the implications for those of you who are heads of
schools of architecture. There has been a shift as we have clearly seeing in emphasis is this
new incarnation of the Directive. The shift from my point of view has been twofold: Firstly,
architecture is now part of a group of professional qualifications as opposed to a discipline
that had a directive on its own. This, to some extent, makes a slightly more complicated in
communicating with those who are making this type of legislation because of the lack of
direct positioning. Formally when the architects’ Directive was functioning an advisory group
consisting of three representatives from each member state was completely and totally
involved in the analysis and the assessment of the curricula and the course content in the
architecture programs. With this new directive that does not quite happen. There is still a
sub-group in Brussels that meets maybe once or twice a year with one representative from
each member state advising in so far as it’s possible. However the single biggest shift from
an educator’s point of view has being the fact that it is now expected that notifications of the
new directive include any other training that maybe required in order to practice architecture
and the profession qualifications directive is no longer a purely academic instrument but it
is about access to the profession.
As we have seeing there are now two, if you like paths, by which a person studying architecture
who wants to be more valid Europe and have access to practice across the member states there
rare two paths along which the can travel. One is the five years of academic training full stop
and the second one is four years of academic training plus two years of certified competence,
I suppose, in professional practice. It is not immediately clear at the moment who is going
to do this certification but it presents a problem for a school of architecture. If the school of
architecture decides for historic reasons or otherwise that it will pursuit the five years academic
training only, does this mean that the school of architecture now has some responsibility for
the professional competence of their graduates and whether that graduate is safe to be let
loose to practice alone in any member state of the EU? And that changes the position of the
school or it should and its thinking.
If on the other hand it decides to opt for the four plus two version in then almost needs in
fairness to its own students, even though mobility exists, to have some arrangement in place
to allow its graduates to acquire the additional two years experience they need, in order that
they can practice also.
I think it will be irresponsible for any school of architecture not to be in position to say to the
student of architecture on the first day of first year when you have completed your program
with us or when you have completed your program with us and other that we will identify
and vouch for you will be entitled to practise as an architect. Anything less than that is not
ethical for a school in my view. And it now places a huge choice and if you want to add further
complications to it we could be here all day because each member state is also in the process 201
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

of other, at least many of them are, in other types of legislation which impose requirements on
professionals quite beyond the directives and quite beyond the Bologna process. So we have a
lot of things that do not quite fit together and somehow the next number of incarnations that
I expect it won’t be just one, w’ill be necessary before there is a completely clean meshing. The
Architects Directive actually managed over twenty-year period to, more or less, get the playing
field reasonably leveled in the context of the academic training of the architectural graduates.
This new requirement and the access to the profession is a very uneven playing field across
the member states of the EU. And prediction is a dangerous thing but I would say that there
is good twenty years yet before that playing field levels itself a bit more.

Constantin Spiridonidis, Greece

The first point is that all this preparatory process presented by Howard Davies held out of
the discussion the schools of architecture. In this discussion there were representatives from
Universities and the profession but not from schools of architecture. In this room, over all
these previous years, there is a lot of recorded discussion about the Directive, the duration of
studies, the profile of the graduates, the competences the skills and the knowledge that the
graduate have to acquire at the end of their studies. This is a very interesting and important
material, which was not capitalised during the preparation of the directive. This invisibility is
our responsibility and not of any other body or Institution.
The second point; till now in Europe we had just one legally defined minimum duration of
studies which was the four years. In the framework of the Meeting of Heads, prepared in 2001
by the Heads of Schools, there was a first statement or declaration stating that five years of
studies should be considered as the minimum necessary length of studies. Since the directive
in that time defined four years, this declaration was a clear suggestion for the revision of the
directive. A working group was defined by the EAAE and ACE that tried to push the situation
towards the five years. Unfortunately this effort failed and the new directive of 2005 remained
in the four years as minimum length of studies. However, the majority of schools of architecture,
there are one or two exceptions, followed the five years plan, so at that time the four years of
the Directive was not a burning issue.
Now it appears that there are two official profiles of graduates. Not only one. Those two profiles
have completely different competences or characteristics. The four + two is one profile the
five is another one. Schools of architecture will be faced now with a new dilemma which of
these two profiles they have to be targeted. If we will take into account the fact that the eleven
points remain a common objective for both schemes, then someone could easily imagine
that schools of architecture, due to the financial crisis between others, will be pressed by the
political system and social dynamics to go for the four years because this is at least cheaper.
We are facing a risk to have a generalised situation where the already established length of
five years will become four. This is a very important issue that we have to deal with in the near
future and to investigate what kind of strategies schools have to follow in order to cope with
this new situation.
Third point. The amended Directive appears to consider an equivalence between the two years
in practice with one year in the school. We need to investigate the validity of this equivalence
and to define the conditions under which this will be valid. Schools of architecture are now
202 invited to cede or to transfer their right to educate architects to a body that never had it.
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

This is something extremely important. We cannot do it without a serious elaboration of the

terms, the conditions and the presuppositions. Which means that a serious ans systematic
collaboration between schools and practice is urgently needed. In the past Meetings of Heads
we have notices many times that it is very important to establish a close relationship between
schools and practice. However, we never defined which kind of collaboration we want and we
never elaborated the forms and the content of this collaboration. The only opportunity we as
schools had to contact the professional bodies was through the dialogue developed by the
working party EAAE/ACE and which was based upon the Directive. When the Directive was
implanted, this dialogue stopped and we remain again wishful that in the future the profes-
sion and the schools will find a meeting point. We are facing once more the situation where
by denying doing something with our own means and ways, this is imposed by the political
system following its own terms and conditions. This must be a new alert for the significance
of the collectivity between schools of architecture and of the role associations of schools of
architecture must play.
Fourth point. As Howard Davies already mentioned, there is an incompatibility of the European
Policies and very often schools are puzzled amongst almost contradictory requests. Is the
amended Directive compatible with the Bologna process? The directive is a law. The Bologna
process is a declared policy. There is an essential difference. We have a new law, which affects
the way we are functioning and we structure our educational curricula. For the schools who
till now followed the Bologna process and implemented curricula with a certain conception
of the bachelor-master structure and duration, now they probably will be obliged to face new
(painful) reforms. If the four years appears as the necessary condition of minimum length of
studies then the three + two programs will be pressed to choose three + one or four + two
practice? I would like just to remind you that in 1996 in an inquiry we run, we recorded that
75% of schools of architecture are already in the three + two. For this big majority of schools
the dilemma will be stronger and bold.
Fifth point. Many times in the meetings of Heads we discussed the shift we are facing from an
input-oriented education to an outcome-oriented education. As thematic network, ENHSA
made a serious contribution to the Tunning program and to the formulation of the Sectoral
Qualifications framework for Architecture. In this discussion, knowledge, skills and competences
appear to be of fundamental importance. The two previous keynote spetches delivered by
Alfonso Gomez and Marcos Cruz insisted that the ultimate objective of the education is the
development of a way of thinking based upon a number of skills and knowledge. Unfortunately,
the eleven points of the Directive are primarily oriented towards skills and knowledge and
very little towards a way of thinking. Even if they have a kind of general and diachronic under-
standing of the profile of the architect, we will find ourselves again in front of the obligation
to rethink the contents of the eleven points as to this important dimension of the architects
profile, the way of thinking.
The European Qualifications Framework as a general legal framework is produced by the politi-
cal system, again from above. Bologna is a suggested policy again imposed from above to the
schools of architecture. The amended Directive as law appears not to consider seriously all the
milestones of the existing context for the creative articulation of which schools spent tones of
hours thinking, working and debating on.

Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

Howard Davies, United Kingdom

Let me take your point about the ethics. It is true that the one of the drivers to competences-
based education has being concerned for consumer protection. It is absolutely clear that there
are other factors as well but it is particularly true of professions in which there is a high degree
of cross-boarder mobility and in which very highly publicized problems have occurred; notably
medical doctors and general care nurses. In a way the concern extends itself almost automati-
cally to all the sectoral professions we worried about patient safety, we worried about consumer
protection in pharmacy and in veterinary and so why not also in architecture. Whether or not
you are a direct target of this concern you become absorbed in the process. I agree with you
that institutions have an evident ethical responsibility to guarantee the competences of the
architects they produce. This is my view as a user of buildings as I originally describe myself; I
want to be sure when I climb the stairs I will reach the top.
Let me say something about is the competing authorities; there are so many jurisdictions, they
intersect, they are not coherent, and we never quite where we are. You both made that point.It
is strange Bologna process we talk about. It is underpinned by a treaty. All signatory Countries
have signed which is Lisbon recognition treaty and in that sense, it is trying to implement a
law. The problem is there are no sanctions for bridging the treaty. But the treaty exists. But the
treaty is concerned with academic recognition. But at the same time there are 47 Bolognas.
Many of you talked about Bologna but I know you come from different signatory Countries
and I know very well for each of you Bologna means something different. It is inshrined in
your national legislation in different ways, it affects your behaviours in completely different
ways and some times in inconsistent ways. In some Countries it has never been inshrined in
legislation at all. It is a mysterious animal this Bologna process. A good example is the long
integrated programs in the disciplines associated with the sectoral professions. Everybody
believes that Bologna prohibits the long integrated, training program. It has never said that. It
is true that ministers have some times implied that it would be good thing if everything were
Batchelor Master Doctorate but is cannot be laid down it is not lay down. If you look back to
the documentation of Bologna process the most explicit reference you see to long integrated
training programs is in the 2003 in Helsinki seminar papers where it is explicitly stated that in
certain disciplines, those which feature as sectoral professions in the directive, long integrated
programs are fine, they maybe the norm, nobody has any complaint about it, there has being no
systematic pressure for those programmes to convert to Bachelor plus Master. That is the case.
I am talking about Bologna on the one hand and the Directive on the other and I refer to the
ministers, the Bologna ministers, the council of ministers but these are not the same people.
The Bologna ministers ar the ministers of higher education. The directive ministers and the
council of ministers are the ministers of internal market, ministers of trade, these are ministers
what ever these are not ministers of higher education. Part of the problem is getting one
group of ministers to agree with another group of ministers it is not useful simply talk about
ministers as a collective group.
The commission is concerned, in the end, it is not terribly concerned about quality assurance.
It is concerned about patient safety and consumer protection but is also concerned about
credibility of automatic recognition. This is really what worries the Commission. It has set up
a regime of automatic recognition for seven professions. It wants to extend it because it will
make life easier and it would increase dynamism to the single market in services. But, it is very
hard to do. The final problem is the question of legal competence I mentioned before. In the
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

Directive we are talking about a legal apparatus for mobility of professionals where the legal
competence resides with EU institutions. This is EU law. When we talk about higher education it
is not the same thing at all this is prerogative of the member states and it is one they jealously
guard. It is, in many ways, a fantasy and I do not know how long it will last.
I will conclude with another complication. It seems to me that the Directive which conjoint
birth with the Services Directive. I went to DG education and Culture and I said at the time
how does Higher Education fall within the scope of the Services Directive and they said “what
Services Directive”? I went to Internal Market and I said how does it fall within the scope of the
Directive and the Services Directive and they simple said we have not thought it about. And I
went to DG Competition and iI asked how does HE fall within the scope of the Services Direc-
tive and they said “well it probably does but nobody has realised that yet or want to realised
it. That was the most interesting discussion because Higher Education is a tradeable service.
I am sorry to say this. It is traded and the axiom on which DG Competition works is that when
something is traded somewhere it becomes by definition a tradeable service everywhere in
the European single market. Higher Education is traded, it is a service it is a tradeable service.
Nobody realises this yet or nobody wants to realise this yet, I am sure the EUA wants to realise
it yet, I am not sure I want to realise it yet. One day the Court of Justice will say “I am sorry we
have to update our practice we have to come to terms with the reality”. At that point Higher
Education will fall within the scope of something like the Services Directive and they will
become subject to the exclusive competences of EU institutions At that point maybe it will
much easier to bring the Bologna process into line with the Directive but that is complicated.
But somewhere in the future that exist as well you know that possibility.

Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles


Peter Gabrijelčič, Slovenia

I am afraid that the proposal has some kind of conceptual failure or misunderstanding. It seems
to me that the 4+2 looks like: you, the academic can do your job and all the skills should be on
the side of the profession. It is like a piano player to whom we say, for four years we can teach
you some music theory and then training can come after that. Yet in fact, the nature of our
studies is that the skills should be involved all the time, at every step, step by step for each of
those five years. It should therefore be more normal that the profession should be involved
in some way – if it is necessary – throughout all the years, like a practice. For example, there
could be some practice for two months, every year. That is one failing.
The other danger is that now the profession is in crisis: there are no jobs. The questions is,
what should happen with those students who should go into practice for those two years in
offices which do have no any work. It was happening in Italy and so Bologna was born because
Italians produce numerous teachers. Therefore, they produced the three year long schools
and out of that the idea about three plus two. There is now a problem in Italy: in Italy there
are numerous schools with three, but very few with two and there are students without any
help. I know about the situation in Italy from colleagues; I was also a visiting professor there.
It should be the same situation.

Vlatko Korobar, FY Republic of Macedonia

I come from a candidate country, which means that the Directive will not be a law for us,
although it will be looked at something which will be complied with. The Bologna agreement
will be kept in mind when our studies are arranged. If the goal was to coordinate the Directive
and the Bologna Process, or have them in accordance with each other, then I think the amend-
ments do the opposite. We had a big fight with the professional body, with the Chamber, to
come to an agreement: the 300 ECTS are the big condition for the profession of architect in my
country. This is so it would be put in terms of EU ECTS. Now with this amendment, we have to
think it over. We have to have another fight. It is not clear – at least I did not understand well
– whether in any way the schools, or academia, have any sort of control over the professional
experience of two years. You mentioned that those can be taken after at least three years of
study, then there are two years of professional experience, then you can return to the school for
one year. Do schools have any connection to or any control over the traineeship or not? Or, if
a student finishes four years and leaves, is he or she would be obliged to go back to school for
any kind of approval or something similar? Things are not being made clear; it simply seems
that new dilemmas are being opened.

Juhani Katainen, Finland

I have been working quite long in my life with these issues and I have only one basic question:
where does this wisdom come from to make these changes? I ask this because architects have
not been heard, our institutions have not been heard and the schools and universities have not
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

been heard when these new decisions have been made. I was happy to hear that it is an ongo-
ing process, so maybe wisdom will appear in what we are working for and what we are doing.

Pierre von Meiss, Switzerland

I must say that although I have very white hair, this makes me become something of an
anarchist. After all this, I am becoming an anarchist! Yet why is this? I remember very well
a very good friend of mine, who was an architect, was one of those who signed the Bologna
Declaration. The true motivation behind it was not only in order to join in itself, but to join
to be stronger than the United States. This is never mentioned, but why not? There was a
competition between the European kaleidoscope and the relatively clear situation in the
United States.
When our students got to places like Malaysia, they did not know how to handle it because
they only knew about the American degrees. We have Bachelors and Masters. Now the point
of this new directive, with the Bachelors and Masters, were disappeared all of a sudden, what
happened? We have been working now for twelve years to install this throughout Europe. It
is as was said: why we were not asked what we are doing, what we are teaching, what we are
striving for? It took some time to accept the Bachelors and Masters idea.
The other idea they had in Bologna was that they could get the education cheaper; they said
they could get rid of the three years, three-quarters of the students can be got rid of and a
quarter can continue to the Masters. It has not worked at all out that way, but that was what
was discussed in Bologna as one of the things they were aiming for. Please correct me if I am
wrong. This programme has been developed in many places throughout Europe, also in order
to have more exchanges between schools we started to see the advantages of the Bachelors
and Masters, one of the advantages perhaps being some kind of reorientation during the
Masters programme. Yet, now all of a sudden, there is a law which destroys it.

Frid Buehler, Germany

For me there is one question behind the new Directive which was mentioned before: I think it
is the entrance to the discussion whether it is possible to delegate the academic subjects to the
practice. For me, this is a crucial question because, as you know, some new university laws in
different countries allow the universities to delegate up to 49% content to the practice – that
is nearly half. In my opinion, this is a very dangerous thing and it needs looking at.

Maria de Fatima Fernades, Portugal

I would like to mention our experience in Portugal. In the past, there were six years in
architecture school. After Bologna this was changed to five years and there was a year in
practice, organised by the architects’ associations. I am the president of the association who
admits the young architects and who supervises the practice of the architects in northern
Portugal. There is now a big problem, because there is a small amount of practice available
for young architects. In the past, the schools had practice and the schools also provided a
control over the quality when the practice finished, the result of that practice. I think that
the current situation is not good. We have the five years which is very difficult. If one year 207
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

is taken from the schools and two years are given to the practice, there will be a problem,
because we will not be controlling anything. It is impossible to give the knowledge to
build responsibly and we will destroy one of the best professions that we have in Portugal:

Ugis Bratuskins, Latvia

My impression is that in these two documents being discussed here, each uses different lan-
guage. Perhaps it is difficult therefore to gain an understanding of them. On the one hand,
there is a directive that clearly speaks of contents. It lays out what knowledge, skills and
competencies an architect should have if a person wants to become an architect. On the
other hand, there is the Bologna Declaration which, in my opinion, has a collection of vari-
ous formulae, arithmetical formulae – 3+2, 4+1, 5+0 – and so forth. There is no question of
contents in these formulae. It was mentioned that the next stage will be focused on some
kind of harmonisation, on finding some common language for both of these documents. My
question is, will it be stated in some way who is a Bachelor of Architecture? What knowledge,
skills and competences go into Bachelor level and what goes into Masters level? Are there
going to be, for example, points one to seven on the Directive that goes to Bachelor level
and the rest to Masters level, or will 60% of all the points go to Bachelor level and the remain-
ing to the Masters level? In other words, will there some contents be put into the Bologna
Declaration for architects?

Leen van Duin, Netherlands

As far as I understood, the driving force behind all this bureaucracy is consumer protection.
But our students are consumers, too. They consume education. Did you ever think about the
student as a consumer of education?

Vasileia Trova, Greece

It seems to me that these two degrees which have been proposed are not similar degrees;
they are differentiated. What I mean is that the one is clearly academically oriented, while
the other one is professionally oriented. The five-year one seems to me to be academically
oriented, while the 4+2 is professionally oriented. When the school has to choose, therefore,
what they are actually having to choose is which direction they are going to follow. They are
having to decide whether they want their graduates to be more academically oriented or more
professionally oriented?
The second comment is connected with what is meant by practice, professional training. In
the morning, there was a discussion in which we heard about the diversity of architectural
practices: whether architects are working as architects, as urban designers, or as fashion
designers and so forth. If a four-year graduate decides to practise for one year in an archi-
tectural office, for six months as a fashion designer, for three months as an urban designer
and for three months as something else, who is going to assemble this kind of portfolio and
who is going to evaluate it?
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

Anna-Maria Hariton, Bucharest

I just wanted to make a comment about what Leen van Duin said, because these concerns
on too much protection were rather disturbing. I understood that it is not exactly a main aim
of the document, but that it is a starting point. I have been practising architecture for thirty
years and teaching architecture for almost twenty years and it never came to my mind that
we were so harmful that consumers had to be protected against us!

Nesiljan Dostoglu, Turkey

I was just wondering whether you have considered exams in these two systems. After the
4+2 or five years that are being proposed, are you suggesting any kind of exam for students
to take?

Constantinos Spirionidis, Greece

Before giving you the floor, I would just like to make a clarification. Howard Davies was not
representing the Commission in this event, he was just a representative of the European Uni-
versity Association, and most of the things which he proposed were more or less aligned with
our concerns about the law. I feel obliged to make this clarification after the way he has been
bombarded with questions!

Howard Davies, United Kingdom

Thank you very much for that clarification! There are many questions here that I cannot answer.
I am not an architect, I do not work in a School of Architecture so I cannot answer all of these
questions. I can, however, make a few comments which may help and then James Horan can
possibly come in afterwards. The geo-strategic question rang a bell. It is true that right at the
beginning, the aim of the Bologna Process, and of the Lisbon Process likewise, was to raise the
power and the potency of Europe as a global region and to rival more effectively the United
States of America. That is clearly true.
That has changed, however, and I think that it is very interesting that in the depths of the Euro
crisis, two or three years ago, there was a report in the European Voice, which is a newspaper
that appears every week, published by The Economist in Brussels – it is the only English lan-
guage newspaper that I know that tells you anything about the European Union – it reported
the Merkel and Sarkozy were going to propose a solution for the Eurozone countries, a way
out of the crisis. They could not speak for those outside the Eurozone, but they could speak
for the Eurozone. One of the things they were going to propose – which was never made
public – was automatic academic recognition of all higher education programmes within the
Eurozone. Did you ever hear of that? That is interesting. We are talking about things that do
have some sort of geo-strategic significance, otherwise people of the prominence of Sarkozy
and Merkel would not be discussing them.
It seems that most questions are about the anxieties connected with the 5+0, or the 4+2.
My first question is that I wonder who chooses. I can imagine that the Rector or the Head of
Department or the Head of the school of architecture will initiate a discussion to talk about
which will be offered: the 4+2, or 5+0, or both. It will depend on the student groups they are 209
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

seeking to attract; it will depend on the university’s relationship with the profession at large
and so on. In other institutions, there will no choice at all, there will be no discussion, because
it is the minister who will decide. I do not know in how many countries the minister will
decide, and in how many countries the institutions will decide, but it does of course matter;
it matters enormously.
Our preference – here I am not speaking for the commission, but for the European Universities
Commission – our preference is naturally for the institutions to decide. We are talking about
institutional autonomy and about diversity of provision. We want the institutions to decide what
programmes they offer and for the institutions to decide how they assess and what examina-
tions they impose, what the relations are with the profession, what practice means. These are
not questions for them; I think they are not questions for the ministers, although I know that in
many countries, ministers will have answers to these questions. From our point of view, these
are institutional questions and they should be decided by the academic community, by the
Conseil General, by the General Assembly, by the Senate and so forth.
I wonder, on the 4+2, the questions were raised about what was the relationship in the 4+2
between the four years of the academic provision and the two years of practice. I do not know
what practice means, I am not an architect. From an EAU point of view, one would most prob-
ably say, is this not an opportunity to bring practices within your region or within your city into
the curriculum development process within the institution? Is it not an opportunity to arrange
placements and traineeships a long time in advance, programmed for students to take up or
not as they wish? I can see people shaking their heads! Is it not an opportunity to do this on
a cross-border basis? Is this not an opportunity for institutions to look to their partners across
borders in other EU member states to provide traineeships which can be undertaken on a
cross-border basis within the framework of the Morgenbesser ruling? In other words, is this
not an opportunity to satisfy governments’ insistence on employability? Or on governments’
insistence on cross-border mobility? Is this not an opportunity which could be taken? Looking
around, it appears that the answer is obviously no! I think perhaps I will stop there.

James Horan, Ireland

In the earlier part of this week, before this conference began, some of us were here with groups
from Latin America trying to establish what we understand by excellence in architectural educa-
tion. The definition and the discussions around the definition were long, involved, complex, but
there was one thing that came out of it quite clearly: that excellence is something significantly
better than the minimum standard. These proposals – the five years’ academic called the 4+2,
they are the minimum standards. We are the educators; we can try to decide to make the
standard what we want it to be. In fact, the pattern across most of the schools of Europe at the
moment is a 5 year academic programme, either a 3+2, a five-year straight, or in some cases 4+1.
In many member states, there is a further obligation for graduates after the five years to gain
practical experience for one, two, or maybe three years more before they are deemed to be
entitled to practice. That pattern will, I think, establish itself irrespective of how this new incar-
nation of the Directive is cast. In the old Architects’ Directive, the period of study was a mini-
mum of four years. That did not stop 95% of the Schools of Architecture delivering five-year
programmes. But there is one thing I think that is extremely important: educators and the
Session 4 Managing Change: Modernized Directive and new School Profiles

professionals must talk to each other. At the end of the day, if we want to be involved in the
production of people who are capable of designing buildings and delivering buildings, you
need both the academic education and the practical experience. There is no reason whatsoever
that academic institutions cannot use their skill as teachers to show the profession how to do
this. I am, I suppose, an eternal optimist: I would see opportunities here.

Session 5
Managing Change:
New Forms of Networking
for Education and Research
‘ERASMUS FOR ALL’ or ‘YES EUROPE’ will be implemented in 2014 and
will reflect the new policies of the EU for higher education exchange and
What are the new forms of networking and inter-university collaborations
we need nowadays?
What are the gains from the different forms of networking initiatives
developed in the last years?
Do schools of architecture have a clear policy for contemporary network-
ing and academic exchange?
What forms of networking do we need in the digital era, in the new con-
text of the financial crisis, in the fast changing world?
What are the appropriate forms of academic collaborations in this con-
There are emerging new responsibilities of schools of architecture to rede-
fine and adapt their networking policy and the forms of collaboration
they need to follow.
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

Koenraad van Cleempoel, Diepenbeek, Belgium

Introductory panel:
Johan Verbeke, Brussels-Ghent, Belgium
Russel Light, Sheffield, United Kingdom
Marios Phocas, Nicosia, Cyprus
Nur Çaglar, Ankara, Turkey
Zsolt Vasaros, Budapest, Hungary

Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

Vice-dean for research and Post-graduate Studies, KU Leuven, Faculty of Architecture
Sint-Lucas, Brussesl-Ghent, Belgium

Networking for the 21st Century

In this contribution the author will focus on the new European programmes: ERAMUS+ and
Horizon 2020. The main lines will be shortly discussed as well as some changes compared to
the past. Also some possibilities for future collaboration will be mentioned.
It will be noted social media become more and more important for networking.
Then, 2 cases will be used to illustrate the importance of flexibility and active management
of networks and contacts.

ERASMUS+ (2014-2020)

“The Erasmus+ programme aims to boost skills and employability, as well as modernising
Education, Training, and Youth work. The seven year programme will have a budget of €14.7
billion; a 40% increase compared to current spending levels, reflecting the EU's commitment
to investing in these areas. Erasmus+ will provide opportunities for over 4 million Europeans
to study, train, gain work experience and volunteer abroad.
Erasmus+ will support transnational partnerships among Education, Training, and Youth insti-
tutions and organisations to foster cooperation and bridge the worlds of Education and work
in order to tackle the skills gaps we are facing in Europe.” (
erasmus-plus/index_en.htm). The programme operates along three main categories: mobility,
collaboration, support for policy. The Mobility strand include individual mobility: of course the
traditional student mobility (ERASMUS), staff mobility (at least 5 days up to longer peridos),
as well as practical training in industry (as a follow up to the successful Leonardo da Vinci pro-
gramme). Moreover there is the ERASMUS master activity which will allow students on master
level to obtain a loan to study their full master in another country. This is a new and interesting
addition to the mobility possibilities. It can be expected this will generate more mobility after
the bachelor degree as it wil stimulate students after their initial degree to study their full
master degree (as opposed to an ERASMUS exchange which is normally for one semester or
one year) in another country. The challenge for the schools of architecture will be to find ways
of incorporating and promoting this kind of mobility; which networks and communication
channels are useful for this. It will probably also increase the need for a well profiled master
degree. This seems to be an interesting new aspect and we should explore the usefulness and
benefit for our Schools.
Beside the mobility activities, there are several opportunities for collaboration: exchange of
innovation and good practice; strategic partnerships (between universities but also includ-
ing non-university organisations), knowledge alliances and collaborations on strategic levels. 215
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

“Strategic Partnerships" offer the opportunity for organisations active in the fields of educa-
tion, training and youth, as well as enterprises, public authorities, civil society organisations
to cooperate in order to implement innovative practices leading to: high quality teaching,
training, learning, youth work, institutional modernisation, societal innovation. (…)Projects
enhancing the quality and innovativeness of learning and teaching, developing new curricula,
building bridges between the different sectors of education and fostering more intense forms
of cooperation to achieve the modernisation objectives, including a better exploitation of open
education resources.” (see
“The contribution of higher education to jobs and growth, and its international attractiveness,
can be enhanced through links between education, research and business. These constitute
the three sides of the “knowledge triangle”, stimulating the development of entrepreneurial,
creative and innovative skills in all disciplines, and promoting innovation in higher education
through more interactive learning environments and increased knowledge-exchange. The
purpose of Knowledge Alliances is to strengthen Europe’s innovation capacity by fostering
innovation in higher education via balanced, two-way knowledge exchange with enterprises
and across the broader socio-economic environment. They implement a coherent and com-
prehensive set of interconnected activities through transnational structured partnerships,
involving a minimum of six organisations from at least three Programme Countries, of which
there must be a minimum of two higher education institutions and a minimum of two enter-
prises. Knowledge Alliances will: Develop new, innovative and multidisciplinary approaches to
teaching and learning; Stimulate entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial skills of students,
academics and company staff; Facilitate the exchange, flow and co-creation of knowledge.”
It is clear that both the Strategic Partnerships and the Knowledge Alliances incorporate inter-
esting opportunities and potential. We should all prepare for incorporating these activities in
our international activities. It may be especially useful to focus on the specific type of think-
ing and acting which is part of the field: designing. How can we validate the specific nature
of knowledge in our field? Furthermore, there are possibilities for developing e-learning and
e-twinning ( a platform stimulating collaboration and exchange between staff). Finally, it
is important to notice there are also specific programmes to stimulate capacity building in
3rd countries (outside Europe). Also here there are interesting opportunities. The support for
policy (developing indicators, studies, monitoring, valorization, etc.) may be less useful for
disciplinary initiatives. Hence it can be concluded the new ERASMUS+ programme incorporates
some interesting new possibilities for international collaboration and School so Architecture
should develop a policy to engage in these which is in line with their profile and ambition.

Horizon 2020

Horizon 2020 programme is the new programme for research and comes after the 7th Frame-
work of Research. The programme is composed of the following sections: Excellent Science,
Industrial Leadership, Societal Challenges, Spreading Excellence and Widening Participa-
tion, Science with and for Society, European Institute of Innovation and Technology and
Euratom. The programme includes many possibilities from individual grants (small as well
216 as big projects) to training networks and focused projects. A lot of the calls are open to all
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

disciplines, but there are also more focused application possibilities as eg. for ICT, urban
development, societal change, etc. More information can be found at
As many of the calls are open to all disciplines, it is clear the Schools of Architecture have the
challenge to explore how they can compete with other fields. As Architecture is not listed as
a discipline, it may also be a challenge to select the disciplinary panels. It may be useful to
develop together a strategy on how to deal with these challenges and mixed panels. Although
not formally part of the Horizon programme, the Creative Europe programme on supporting
and improving culture and audiovisual in Europe also includes funding possibilities for the field
of architecture (see

Social Media

Social media (facebook, LinkedIn, etc) are integrating everywhere in our daily life. Students
and staff use them and they become part of the communication and interaction channels of
the teaching and design studios. An interesting experiment has been implemented at Sint-
Lucas School of Architecture. A web platform enabled us to extend the learning that took
place in the design studio beyond the studio hours, to represent the design information in
novel ways and allocate multiple communication forms. We found that the students’ activity
in the introduced web platform was related to their progress up to a certain extent. Moreover,
the students perceived the platform as a convenient medium and addressed it as a valuable
resource for learning. The study is conceived as a continuation of a series of our “Design Studio
2.0” experiments which involve the exploitation of opportunities provided by novel socio-
geographic information and communication technologies for the improvement of the design
learning processes (Pak and Verbeke, 2013 1). So, it was found that the more active students got
higher grades up to a certain point when it seems students started to spent too much time on
the social media. Social media are a wonderful platform for interaction and communication.

2 cases: OIKODOMOS and ADAPT-r

Two cases studies, OIKODOMOS and ADAPT-r, will be given in order to illustrate the importance
of flexibility and organic growth of networks.


The project starts as an outcome of the Intensive Programme during which 3
intensive workshops took place (2004-2006).
OIKODOMOS is a pedagogic research project financed by the Lifelong Learning Programme.
The goal of the project is to create a virtual campus to promote the study of dwelling at a
European scale. The aim of OIKODOMOS, a Greek word for "to build, to construct a house", is
to set an innovative learning structure in motion, incorporating on-line and on-site activities
(blended learning). The first phase of the project was carried out from 2007 to 2009 within the
subprogramme Erasmus Multilateral Projects-Virtual Campus. This phase of the project was
executed by higher education institutions and research centers from Belgium, France, Slovakia, 217
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. From 2010 to 2011, the activities of the project
were continued under the support the same European Agency, this time under the subpro-
gramme Erasmus Accompanying Measures. In this second phase, the original consortium has
been enhanced with a new partner from Turkey. (see
The pedagogical activities of OIKODOMOS are based on blended learning, international col-
laboration and exchange of expert knowledge, also by incorporating non-academic experts.
Since 2013 the partnership has evolved into a EC funded network on housing: OIKOnet.
OIKONET has started its activities on October 1st 2013. The goal of the three year project
co-funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union is to create a space of
collaboration to study contemporary housing from a multidisciplinary and global perspective.
OIKONET will intertwine three areas of activity each one making a subnetwork within the
1. RESEARCH on housing studies from a multidisciplinary and global approach;
2. PARTICIPATORY ACTIONS to engage communities in the definition, solution and evaluation
of housing problems.
3. PEDAGOGICAL ACTIVITIES will be the result of the collaboration of researchers, universities
and communities.
The OIKONET consortium is made of 30 partners from 26 European countries and 4 partners
outside Europe. It is coordinated by prof. Leandro Madrazo from the University Ramon Lull in
Barcelona, Spain. Participating institutions are universities, research institutes, research groups,
social organizations, local administrations and international agencies. More information can
be found at
This example nicely shows how workshops of students can evolve in more intense collabora-
tions between partners and in a later stage to a network incorporating research as well as
pedagogical activities. It uses digital media to facilitate communication and collaboration and
to foster a growing and dynamic network.


The ADAPT-r (Architecture, Design and Art Practice Training-research) is funded under the 7th
Framework of the European Commission. It has started on 1st January 2013 and the partnership
includes 7 universities (and more than 25 creative practices): KU Leuven Faculty of Architecture
Sint-Lucas which is coordinator, Aarhus School of Architecture, University of Ljubljana, Glasgow
School of Arts, Estonian Academy of Arts, University of Westminster and RMIT (Melbourne). It
uses the activities in practice for building creative practice research and connects academia
and practice. The project emerges from many years of collaboration between RMIT and Sint-
Lucas. The application process required three preparatory meetings. The project has a budget
of 4M Euro and includes 600 research months.
The large scale nature of this project creates new complexities and requires active management
from the coordinator and the partners. On the other hand, just as in other disciplines the field
of architecture, art and design is in need of more of these large scale projects in order to push
research developments forward and to make the field of architecture more visible for EU policy
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

makers. It is an interesting anecdote the project was applied under the social sciences, other
as there was no tag for the discipline of architecture.


We are facing a moment where European programmes have changed and enter a new era.
The important question then is which new forms of networking will be useful and which new
collaborations between universities will be needed. From past experiences it seems that School
(of Architecture) are in need of flexible networks, which allow for growth and development.
Collaboration can start as small scale projects and evolve into bigger ones when the part-
ners have been working together for some time. Hence, schools should stimulate grass-root
developments and facilitate initiatives by staff. Over time, some lines of cooperation become
stronger, some become less important and disappear. This requires management and a posi-
tive facilitating attitude from deans and directors. Hence, it seems we will need a strategy and
activities on many complementary levels: on the individual level for students and staff; on
the level of joint degrees which are becoming more and more important (especially on PhD
level); more formally and structural agreements. School will have to map their competences
and core fields of activity and manage their collaborations actively.

1 B. Pak and J. Verbeke, 2013, Redesigning the Urban Design Studio: Two Learning Experiments, Journal
of Learning Design, Vol. &, No. 3, special issue on Design Education, pp. 45-62.

Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

Russel LIGHT
Senior University Teacher, School of Architecture, University of Sheffield,
United Kingdom

The text below has been transcribed and edited by the editors to ensure flow and coherence of the
entrie book, as there was no response by the presenter to provide his original text within the deadline.

Ι teach at Sheffield School of Architecture which is 105 years old, over 600 students including
not only our professional courses but also postgraduate taught courses and research students.
We live in a Miesian arts tour with its unique pattern astern lift and that building ahs been our
home since the 1960s. To contradict Marcos Cruz’s lecture, we are trying not to be like our
International Style building or to exist in the Ivory Tower. We tried ourselves instead of being
a very socially engaged school that is rooted in its local context. You probably wonder what a
coordinator of external relations is. I wonder that too. It is a position I found myself into acciden-
tally. I’ve taught in the School for 26 years, my main role has always been as a studio teacher.
I teach perspective drawing. I just happened to be the first member of staff in the School to
start using twitter not really for personal reasons, but to start notifying students about events
and things they might be interested in and as a way to engage more people in lectures and
symposia. Through that I have become responsible for our website, publications, social media,
etc. in the School. On Networks as a School we are not so interested in the business notion
of networking, more in being connected is particularly important for a provincial school in
the UK, a school outside London, which always seems to be slightly in the shadows. We are
interested in sharing ideas and information and we are very interested in being engaged at
as many levels as we possibly can. On way of looking at networks is as a series of layers where
we are looking locally, regionally, nationally, to Europe and internationally. An area we feel
we are lacking is within the Institution at which level we need to be networking as well. I am
not going to go into details about our networking but obviously my presence is part of our
ambition to strengthen our network at a European level. I m going to talk about the types of
networks that our school has but I am not going to cover Erasmus or research as these areas
will be covered by other people, but in terms of social media and digital networks we try to
use Linkedin, Twitter, Facebook a lot to spread the word about the School more. Twitter we
find a very effective way of notifying students about events. We get lots of students outside
the School to listen to things, take part in things. Possibly they wouldn’t have heard about
these otherwise. Also through life twitting for lectures and events we find we get much more
interest from some of the quieter students. They are prepared to ask a question about twitter
they would not do by raising their hand and ask. So, twitter can be the voice of these students.
Facebook we use very specifically; we set up specific groups of students when we accept them
to courses and before they even arrive at Sheffield so that they can speak to each other, get in
touch, discuss where they are going to live so they already working like a community before
they are in the School. Linkedin we find is a good way of keeping in touch with the Alumni of
the School. It is a way of self-updating database of our former students. We find we don’t have
out-of-date email addresses and we know where they all are. However, we do have to be care-
ful with all these digital media. To quote one of our students who was quite perceptive: ‘older
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

people who do not use social media often overestimate their importance’. What we have to
do is to be not too seduced by all this but to be aware that it can only be effective if it provides
knowledge and information.
What also connect to networks. We re very keen on connecting architecture with other pro-
fessions; and the way we do that at Sheffield is that we have three jewel accredited taught
programmes. We have an architecture and structural engineering course, at degree level, we
have an architecture and landscape at degree level, and one on architecture and regional
planning course at masters level. All these courses are accredited by both the RIBA on the
architectural side and by the equivalent institute on the other side; so students get a double-
value degree and because all these students are working in the same studios, on the same
projects we get a real mix of different experience amongst the students. What we like to think
is that this makes students more familiar with structural engineers, landscape architects and
planners and gives them some preparation for that kind of networking in their professional
lives. In certain projects we very explicitly develop multidisciplinary teams as well.
Sheffield has become known in the UK very much as an innovator in what we call life projects
which is now starting to spread around in other schools of architecture. We were there very
early, we have done over 130 of these projects over a 12 year period. What we mean by life
projects is students working in teams as they would in an office. They do not get marked
individually, but they get marked as a group of about 8 to ten people. They are real projects,
with real clients, with real outcomes and they work in real time. Students do them over a six-
week period, sometimes students build things, sometimes it is more about people, sometimes
about feasibility, sometimes it is producing exhibitions but we find them a very good way
of developing our networks with the local region, with the city and beyond as some of the
projects take place internationally. Again, it is a very good way of students developing team
skills. And to feel that architecture isn’t only about them but how they relate to other people.
There are probably parallels here with the community service projects in Boston described
by Ted Landsmark earlier and also in the way Marcos Cruz talked about how a school can
contribute directly, a lot of similarities there.
Another very important network that we see in the school is our Alumni, we see them as our
key relationship with the practice, we hold regular alumni events not necessarily in Sheffield
but in London where most of our Alumni end up working and we make a particular point
in these events to invite people to speak who are working outside of architecture. We have
established practitioners as well. We are very keen to show to our existing students that they
have to be aware of the broad range of things people are doing and as part of that we are
running a research project in the School which is called the RIBA destination survey which is
aiming to get the same kind of information about UK architecture students as the pie chart
that we saw yesterday by Michael Monti on Syracuse University.
Finally, our most important network, as I see it, is our studio culture; we see studio working
as key in the School the shared environment where students can seek help from each other,
different years can come together and discuss issues as well as take possessions of the space.
One thing we are kind of proud of is that we hold quite regular students staff meetings. I am
sure most schools do, but I find that younger students make critiques of the School before
the staff step in to respond and explain why things are done in a certain way our masters
students are straight in there explaining that the way things are done is a good way of doing
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

things, it proves that are students are engaged in the way the School works. We have a very
active student society, which is part of the studio culture, lively programme of lecture and
social events and an initiative students put forward called lunch-time special talks. Talks are
organized by students on areas they want to share with each other. Students are particularly
good at sketch-up, photoshop or hands-drawing or whatever skills and they do twenty-minute
presentations to each other entirely voluntarily. The staff offered to help but the students prefer
to do it themselves. Frequently you can walk into those rooms where there will be a hundred
students sat there eating their sandwiches, taking notes and getting involved. It is this the
heart of our School. If this is healthy and functioning well, then everything else will follow.

Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, University
of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

From a Bottom-Up Approach in Architectural Education

and Research Towards a Top-Down Networking Development
Case Study: The Department of Architecture, University of Cyprus


In the last years the academic environment has been significantly altered as a result of the
implementation of the European policies on higher education, mainly induced by the Bologna
Process and Lisbon Strategy, but also influenced by the globalization and the fast growing
internationalization of economies and markets. At the same time, the need for networking
develops, as the thematic session suggests, that may refer to both aspects, education and
research in architecture, and thus, to students and faculty alike. Respective networking poli-
cies are directly related to educational and research activities or evolve independently, with
regard to educational contents and time frames of collaborations. In all cases, in structuring
effective model policies of networking in education and research, the structure of the program
of studies adopted in the three cycles (Bachelor, Master and Doctoral stage) is considered to
be highly significant for enabling Schools of Architecture to become vital components of
related collaborations of shared experiences and strengths and thus gain further perspec-
tives for sustainable and innovative developments. This requires also that the contents of
the programs of studies and aims set in education and research are coherent and integrative
in the cultivation of design skills and the production of new knowledge within architecture
and across the disciplines, as well as in international context, for succeeding in reformulating
the interdisciplinary character of architecture in related historical, cultural and technological
modes of operation.
In exemplifying the aforementioned interrelations of education and research in Schools of
Architecture with the strategies followed for networking of students and faculty, the main
characteristics of the programs of studies and research at the Department of Architecture of
the University of Cyprus will be presented. The case example proves that forms of networking
in education and research are directly related to the structure of studies and research activi-
ties pursued, while crossfertilization between other faculties and institutes can only enhance
respective objectives in the areas concerned.

Studies and Research in Architecture at the University of Cyprus

The Department of Architecture of the University of Cyprus as one of the four Departments
of the Faculty of Engineering, accepted its first undergraduate students in Fall 2005 and its
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

first doctoral students in Spring 2007. In Spring 2013, with eight faculty members, 152 and 14
students were enrolled in the undergraduate and Ph.D. programs of studies respectively. Further
seven students were enrolled in the interdepartmental Masters program in Energy Technolo-
gies and Sustainable Design of the Faculty of Engineering. Due to its specific thematic, this
Masters program will not be further explained in the present documentation, although it may
well offer a bridging towards further Ph.D. studies in architecture. Due to the rather small size
of the Department, an autonomous M.Sc. program of studies in Architecture is still postponed.
The programs of studies at the University of Cyprus are based on the European Credit Transfer
and Accumulation System, ECTS.

Fig. 1
Structure of the programs of studies in Architecture at the University of Cyprus.

For acquisition of the professional qualifications in architecture, the undergraduate programs

of studies follow a 4+1 model, i.e. four years are required for acquisition of the B.Sc. in Archi-
tecture (240 ECTS) and a subsequent year, for the Diploma in Architecture (60 ECTS). The
notification of the Departments five years degree in Architecture at European level succeeded
in 2008, in accordance with the directive 85/384/EEC. Since the eleven criteria of the required
architects’ qualifications, as defined in article 46 of the European directive 2005/36/EEC, are
directly related with the profession, the evaluation of the undergraduate programs of studies
refers to the qualifications acquired with the diploma, not to discrete subjects that comprise
the educational cycles. The interactive and interrelated nature of the individual components
is mostly significant for a comprehensive architectural education. In principle, the program
of undergraduate studies at the University of Cyprus follows a concrete structure of courses
in the first three years of study that ensures a solid comprehensive education in the areas
of the field and a holistic approach to design. The fourth, final year of the Bachelors degree
enables the students to select architectural courses of interest, as well as advanced design
projects. At this final years stage the design projects are taught on semester basis by visiting
faculty members coming from other Universities abroad. In principle, architectural design as
primary component of the program of undergraduate studies is conducted following four
criteria that support on the long run the inseparable of the design education and design
based research:
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

- Structure of the program of studies: Architectural design derives directly from the indi-
vidual disciplinary areas of theory and design, instead that it comprises an independent
thematic entity.
- Thematic contents: Architectural design is supported per semester with knowledge,
analysis skills and experience acquired from the individual discipline areas. At the same
time design serves as a connecting application process within the broader educational
- Teaching staff: Architectural design is supervised per semester by a team of a faculty
member with design and research competencies addressing the respective thematic and
educational aims followed and a practicing architect (adjunct faculty member).
- Research component: Architectural design lays emphasis on sequential transfer of thematic
research results of multidisciplinary nature, as well as design based research in different
scales – urban, building, construction design.

The fifth year of studies that comprises a discrete one-year graduate cycle of the diploma,
supports the development of a design based research thesis in interdisciplinary environments.
The frame conditions for the general development of the projects are defined by the students
themselves through formulation of a general topic of interest and selection at first stage of a
team of supervisors from the Department. As the projects unfold, a diverse team of supervi-
sors is gradually formed, including “specialists” from other Departments of the University,
the industry or other research institutes. Thus teams may be continually formed in a cyclical
process of different design stages, whereas new technologies can be employed to assemble
the expertise and perspectives arising from the members and disciplines. This framework
enhances interdisciplinarity in two ways: in the development of the designs from the students’
perspective, in terms of forming sub-groups with similar general topics but leading to different
design aims, and in the process of supervision, cooperation and evaluation of the designs by
the supervising teams. In this frame, the evaluation of the thesis projects is primarily based
on the consequent transfer of knowledge, skills and creativity towards knowledge production
and design integration and innovation. The diploma supervising and examining committees
consist of the diploma advisor as the head of the committee, at least one other faculty mem-
ber from the Department of Architecture and at least one other faculty member from inside
or outside the University. Outside members can be faculty members from other accredited
institutes, or other qualified experts according to their abilities to assist in the students diploma
thesis. The schedule of advising ensures that students are well advised by interdisciplinary and
often international teams and actively engaged in research at the early stages of their designs.
Ph.D. studies in architecture at the University of Cyprus are research oriented with strong
interdisciplinary character with regard to students’ educational backgrounds and research
activities and supervisors’ areas of specialization. Ph.D. research at the Department aims at
identifying relevant international architectural issues while promoting opportunities for local
architectural development. Respective research activities focus on the fields of architectural
theory and history, digital communication media, technology and urban design. At the same
time architectural design is considered to derive directly from these individual fields, instead
that it comprises in essence any autonomous thematic entity. Applicants to the Ph.D. program
of studies must possess the equivalent of a 5-years Diploma in Architecture or a Masters degree 225
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

in a related discipline to the proposed research from an accredited University. The course of
studies requires the completion of at least 80 ECTS units in graduate courses related to the
Ph.D. Thesis and the completion of 160 ECTS units from graduate research. Up to two gradu-
ate courses may be selected from other Departments of the University. In principle, the Ph.D.
program of studies follows a strict regulated framework with regard to the time manage-
ment and procedure required throughout the stages of introduction and overall assessment
of the respective research field, focus on intended research concentration and workout of the
research proposal. At the same time, this framework offers flexibility in the definition of pos-
sible research directions to be followed by the students and the faculty members assuming the
advisors role. In pursuing research, crossfertilization between other faculties of the University
and other institutes is strongly encouraged. Indicative for this is also the fact that at the final
stage, the examining committee consists of three faculty members, a member from the faculty
of another Department of the University with relevant knowledge of the Ph.D. research topic,
and a member from another University or research institute. Horizontal component of the Ph.D.
research constitutes “the broader discipline of architecture and within multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary fields” as stated in the respective departmental documentation. This in essence
is initially due to the small size of the Department within a research oriented University leading
to intense crossdisciplinary interdepartmental research activities of the faculty members. This is
furthermore reflected by the fact that doctoral students with different educational backgrounds
are considered to be only enriching the program and the research teams.

Networking Development at the University of Cyprus

The main characteristics of the program of studies and research at the Department of Archi-
tecture of the University of Cyprus form a discrete basis for any respective networking policies
followed for its students and faculty members.
The initial three years of undergraduate studies in architecture are structured within a strict
regulated educational framework, whereas all courses of the curriculum are compulsory.
Through integration of theoretical knowledge and design skills, the faculty practices a holis-
tic design approach in education throughout different scales and increasing complexity. The
educational activities are concentrated in-house, and especially architectural design courses
take place through collaborations of the faculty members with practicing architects acting as
adjunct faculty members. In some cases, especially in the 3rd year of studies, design projects are
collectively offered and developed in collaboration with other partner Universities in European
countries. Nevertheless, at this stage, the School is primarily concerned with its own internal
mechanisms in providing high quality architectural education for the provision of fundamental
knowledge and skills in architecture.
In the final Bachelors year, the program of studies actively supports flexibility in the design of
individual courses pathways, exchange of students and acquisition of visiting faculty members
from abroad on semester basis. This stage is considered to be significant for the students to
become exposed to different educational environments and formulate in the long run indi-
vidual interests and strengths towards the subsequent diploma thesis. Indicative for this is the
fact that in the 7th semester of studies, most students are encouraged to study for a semester
period abroad. Accordingly approximately 50 % of the students year body study in other partner
226 Universities in European countries.
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

The diploma thesis itself develops in principle in interdisciplinary environments while leading
to integrated design projects of higher complexity. It also often provides possibilities for design
developments on experimental basis, in terms of open-loop interdisciplinary design activities
from early stages of the design process, facilitating merging of individual knowledge and
crossdisciplinary research based knowledge. Throughout such research by design processes,
the students and the supervising faculty members in teams rely on external collaborations
with the practice and other research institutes. Beyond the acquisition of respective qualifica-
tions for the practice of the profession, this particular stage has proven to be bridging further
specializations pursued by the graduates through Master programs abroad, or Ph.D. studies
at the University of Cyprus.
Due to the strong interdisciplinary character of the research activities followed and the rather
small size of the Department, the Ph.D. program of studies depends strongly on crossfertili-
zation between other faculties of the University, the industry and research institutes. At this
stage, the students and the faculty members seek after international crossdisciplinary research
cooperations. It is commonly well acknowledged that interdisciplinary research in architecture
may primarily succeed through new forms of networking and cooperations in design, analysis
and experimentation between different bodies of knowledge and faculties; in all cases, also
out of the boundaries of one owns institution. Therefore, a respective network of emergent
architectural research, including also other collaborators and lab facilities from outside of the
Department and the University is considered to be essential, which would coordinate over-
arching research directions pursued. In general, it is well understood that the success of such
networks depends on the individual participants and the collaborating research institutes that
need to be identified according to their respective research themes and infrastructures. On the
long run, it is the entire interdisciplinary research teams and the utilization of their individual
interests, engagement, areas of expertise and infrastructures in research, which breath mean-
ing into any research activity within the “broader discipline of architecture”.


New forms of networking for education and research in Schools of Architecture are consid-
ered to be most significant for the development of successful, effective and sustainable bod-
ies of education and research. The expected benefits refer not only to an enrichment of the
educational environment for the students, but also to beneficial synergies that derive from
crossfertilization between research institutes. Based on the case example of the Department
of Architecture of the University of Cyprus, it may be concluded that forms of networking are
developed following a top-down approach with regard to the programs of studies and research
adopted. In extent, any structure and programs of studies in architecture are to be developed
in parallel to supporting aspects of networking of the students and faculty. This requires that
Schools of Architecture are perceived as components of respective integrated networks for
education, practice and research with enhanced effective resources and infrastructures.

Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

Head of the Department of Architecture, TOBB-ETU Faculty of Fine Arts, Design
& Architecture, Ankara, Turkey

The text below has been transcribed and edited by the editors to ensure flow and coherence of
the entrie book, as there was no response by the presenter to provide her original text within the

My presentation is structured upon three parts. The first is generally on the networking and its
relation to exchange programs, the second part is on networking strategies on the curriculum
of my University and my department and the third part will be about two recently introduced
exchange programs by the Council of Higher Education in Turkey.
This first part is about my own idea my own rethinking about networking and exchange pro-
grams. As we all know architecture education is always very short whether it is 3+2 years, 4 years
10 years, 15 years continues. It is a lifelong experience. It should involve both knowledge and
experiences in it. The knowledge, as we all know, is the result of the cooperation between the
experiments, experience and mind. Our intuition changes into knowledge during the process
of gaining experience. All the knowledge we have about architectural education has being
acquired from of our own experiences or from the experiences of the others.
Networking provides us with the an environment of learning our own lessons of the experi-
ences of the others and also offering our experience to them. Networking is in general working
together, setting connections as a way of communicating and setting ways of communications.
It is exchanging information sharing knowledge and capabilities being an integral part of a
system or a worldwide group. But I think that networking is more than that. It is the quality of
managing the communication the cooperation and collaboration between the integral parts
of the entire field of architecture and also all practices of architecture.
Exchange needs basically time and money. Exchange programs are the promoters and the
sponsors of the networking. Therefore the networking necessarily occurs between the faculty,
students, curricula, curricula modules, industry other disciplines and many more. Exchange
also occurs also on national, institutional international levels. That is briefly I am thinking about
networking and exchange.
The second part of my presentation is considering architectural education offered by my Uni-
versity,- which is the University of Economics and Technology in Ankara Turkey. The University
has three semesters a year and the education is 11 semesters in total. We have fall, spring and
summer semester and in between the semesters we have the cooperative education or it could
be called joint education modules.
The joint education is implemented for the first time so far in Turkey and it is a model of
collaboration between Industry and the University and gives my University its own original
structure. This structure aims to develop the skils to transport academics achievements into
professional work. It is kind of internship and it as long as a semester 14 weeks and the students
go out of the University for 14 weeks. When I say out of the University I mean, considering my
228 own department, the design offices or some governmental services related to architectural
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

practice and to some companies like civil engineering companies construction material com-
panies whatever. This is well integrated in the structure of the University’s curriculum. The
program is run by a committee of faculty and the students who go to the joint education are
audited by this commission and also the employers are interview to get some feedback in
order to improve the quality and the benefits of this joint education. It is a good strategy in
my opinion because we all know that the architecture and design education requires strong
cultural sensitivity and social skils as well. It is wellknown fact that in our country secondary
education lucks curriculum activities that strengthen the design cultures so that the experi-
ence students acquire from this joint education is really supplementary to their institutional
standard architectural design education.
My department is a brand new department. Only fist and second year students so far. This year
the third year students are joining. The curriculum is structured in relation to the structure of
that joint cooperative education system of the University. In the department we acknowledge
the key role of architecture between primary and applied sciences, the link between theory
and practice, the creativity that seals between sciences and the arts and the impact that close
the gap between the academic and the real world. In this respect our program promotes an
educational model that is based on strong and continuous networking with all fields and all
practices of architecture and design.
It is an original and experimental curriculum and experimental thinks always carry risks but
it is implemented again for the first time in Turkey so far. The curriculum is structured as
a process with the aim to produce new creative knowledge and organise strategies where
such knowledge can be applied to resolve problems. Our curriculum therefore consists of five
principal modular units. Those units are Architectural Design Studios, Architectural Theories
Histories and Cultures, Design Presentation and Research Methods and Techniques, Building
Technologies and the Electives. Each modular unit has a coordinating professor from the faculty
of the department. Our principle is to utilise the progressive and updatable characteristics of
the modules as content and time and therefor keep the curriculum sustainable. Here I use the
sustainability in the sense of the flexibility and ability to absorb the changes in architecture
both in the professional and disciplinary fields.
The preparation of an architectural curriculum with the approach of sustainability, reflect-
ing this view in to curriculum structure as modular units which form the education program
and making the changes and the professional and disciplinary fields of architecture compat-
ible with the thematic contextual methodological and educational structures of modules
strengthen the curriculum and contribute to the succes of that. It is also important to have
the ability to update and sustain the curriculum. The networking of the modular units occurs
between the coordinators and also between all kinds of networking from the outside world.
We presume that these modules will shape the professional personality of the students with
the rhythmic and harmonious movement of the modular units like ribbons.
We believe that this method will provide our education process for consisting the adequate and
necessary experiments such as to compile architectural knowledge in interpret transform into
design express by means of design open to discussion and get feedback from discussions. We
hope the possibility of multiplying and listening these ribbons we are increasing the flexibility
of the program and raise the ability to absorb no matter what the changing conditions might
bring. It is possible to add sections within these five ribbons in vertical and horizontal levels. I
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

do not want to go very much in detail but it also gives the possibility and flexibility to add the
experience of the practising architects or scientists or artists or what are the presentative of
the other disciplines within our curriculum. Not only the knowledge as our strategic is based
on and also the experience will be able to be integrated with the program.
In the last pat of my presentation is that two recently introduced exchange programs by Turkish
Higher Education Council. One is a ‘Mevlana exchange program’ and the other one is the ‘Farabi
exchange program’. Both programs are named after two philosophers from the eastern world.
Mevlana lived in 13th century around Konya you know him from Whirling Dervishes and he was
a poet and theology jurist and mystic philosopher. Mevlana exchange program is a program
which aims at the exchange of students and academic staff between the Turkish higher edu-
cation institutions and higher education institutions of other countries. With the regulation
published in 2011 students and academic stuff exchange between Turkish higher education
institutions and higher education institutions of other countries has being possible. With this
program students may study abroad for minimum one or maximum two terms and academic
staff may lecture abroad from one-week minimum to three months maximum. Accordingly
students and academic staff from any country may benefit from this program being hosted
by Turkish higher education institutions in order to study or lecture. The students registered in
forma educations programs at higher education institutions in Turkey may benefit from Mev-
lana exchange program on condition that the HEI signed a bilateral Mevlana exchange protocol.
The Farabi exchange program is a program promoting the exchange of the students and the
faculty within the Turkish Universities. It is a program in the national level only. This started a
few years ago so we already got a feedback of the exchanges. Students mostly exchange from
the new Universities to the old ones and from the small Universities to the bigger ones. The
faculty moves from the bigger Universities to the small ones and from the old universities to
the new ones. Is a strategy also based on supplying Universities with fresh blood I could call of
the well-experienced faculty staff. As a conclusion I may say that networking has always being
and will be also in the future that a new way of structuring the curricula of architecture. Thank
you very much for listening.

Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

Vice-Dean for Education and for International Affairs, Budapest University of
Technology and Economics, Faculty of Architecture, Budapest, Hungary

As the presentation was accompanied by numerous images the editors could not regretfully tran-
scribe and edit a text that would be incomplete.

Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research


Koenraad Van Cleempoel, Belgium

We heard five very interesting talks; some focused on research, some started from the proper
school and went into aspects of social media, others discussed international networks relating
to research, so there are various options as to what to discuss.

Herman Neuckermans, Belgium

I just have a question, asking for some information from the colleague from Cyprus. What is
the access to the PhD? I am asking this because you only offer a Bachelor degree. Is there a
direct way from a Bachelor to a PhD, or is a Masters needed? In other countries, of course, the
Masters is necessary.

Marios Phocas, Cyprus

In the case of Cyprus, the prerequisite for entry to the PhD is a diploma in architecture, for
people with a background in architecture, or a Masters degree for candidates coming from
other disciplines.

Herman Neuckermans, Belgium

That I understood. The question is whether you need the Masters, which in fact you do not offer.

Marios Phocas, Cyprus

I have to say that in fact most of the students enrolled in the programme did their undergradu-
ate studies abroad. This is with the exception of two students out of the fifteen that we have
at the moment.

Vasileia Trova, Greece

I do not have a question; I have a comment, or a thought to share with you. Manyel Casterls
claims that in periods of crisis, those who survive are those who belong to networks. I think
this is very important for the Schools of Architecture, especially in this period and especially
for the architectural schools of Southern Europe. What I am thinking therefore is whether we
can find ways to integrate this network into the normal curricula of the schools. For me, this
means things like intensive programmes, workshops, conferences, or re-learning how we can
integrate all these modes of learning and of cooperation, which could be within the curricula.
This would mean the schools could support each other, within certain networks. These could
be, for example, thematic networks, or specific research networks.

Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

Koenraad Van Cleempoel, Belgium

Thank you for your comment. I think that is a very valuable comment indeed, the idea to include
international experience within the curriculum and become part of networks. Would some-
one from the panel like to comment on aspects of the crisis? There is no one from southern
countries, except for Cyprus, but there may be other members who would like to elaborate
on the economic crisis and its effect on the national programmes.

Anna-Maria Hariton, Romania

I am from Spiru Haret University in Bucharest and my question is to Zsolt. I have seen very
many interesting things that you have been doing with your school. I must tell you that I
really could not imagine that the school in Budapest would have so many interesting things
being done abroad. This is a very practical question: what do you do to get the money that is
needed for your programmes?

Zsolt Vasaros, Hungary

That is a very interesting question. It is a very secret way, during the crisis! Seriously, it is
through Erasmus IPs; it is financed through the Erasmus IP fund. The other projects were partly
financed through the Erasmus Staff Mobility fund. As for the teachers, we were able to pay their
accommodation and their travel costs. This only involved nine people, the others were paid
for by the sponsors. As I mentioned, the sponsorship was a €1 million project. From this, we
received about €300,000 from Siemens, who was the main sponsor; the other €300,000 was
from the government or scientific fund; the last third of the fund came from different, smaller
investors and companies. It really was not easy to raise the money, though. The team was led
by thirty professors and teachers, who did a lot regarding public relations: they distributed
flyers, spoke at conferences and gave lectures and so forth. Finding the money was actually
the hardest part of the whole project.
As for the other cases, I know everybody thinks about the costs of an Egyptian project, for
example, but it is certainly cheaper to do anything in Hungary or in Romania. The flight has to
be paid for, which is around €300, less than a flight from Vienna to Chania, for example, while
the accommodation and other costs are practically nothing, €5 per day for a student, and that
includes full accommodation. We also had to pay for the local workers, who undertook the
excavation and the restoration and so forth, but that was also not a particularly large sum,
around €2-3 per day. That is how we could afford it. However, the fact that the country is cheap
is not the main reason for going to Egypt, there are other factors, too: there are other things
to see and to research.

Johan Verbecke, Belgium

I do not think that there is one recipe for how things should be done. However, there are, I
think, a couple of things to keep in mind. The first is that within the school there should be
at least one person in the administration who is following developments and rules, so that it
becomes easier to draw up a budget, because there is the experience from one project, which
can be drawn upon for the others. It is important not only to include academic staff here but 233
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

also administrative staff. Build-Up, which I was explaining earlier as part of the Oikodomus
project, which started just as an IP, of which we all have several in our schools. It then develops
into something a little bigger, however, and you build up competence and also trust between
partners, so that you are ready to take on a bigger challenge. It is evidently important to net-
work constantly, and to stay informed.
Earlier, I gave some information about Erasmus Plus. It is important that you know what the
channels are and what is coming up. On the national level, you usually have contact points,
people with email addresses, who can be contacted via email about the latest developments.
It is important to stay in touch with that. It is also important to prepare very well. As I explained,
for this adapted project we prepared for two years; we had four or five partner meetings in
order to reach the point of making the application. This is particularly important for larger
undertakings; I feel this building up and preparation is incredibly important so that you trust
in the partnership; I think that avoids a great deal of problems afterwards. You can possibly
contact some people who have some previous experience of a similar project. This can be
helpful when you are preparing and making applications.
I also wanted to connect this to the earlier question, thinking about how to integrate activities
of a network into the normal curriculum. This is usually a challenge, but when you can do it, it is
very nice and rewarding for staff as well as for students. In the Oikodomus project, for instance,
we had the normal IP workshop type of activity in the middle of a semester. This was organ-
ised in such a way that in the weeks before, in each of the schools, locally, we did preparatory
activities in every design studio, which was in preparation for this workshop. This meant that
people did not start from scratch in the workshop; and then, in the weeks after the workshop,
discussions again continued. This obviously needs preparation; it requires a lot from staff, to
interact. I think you can do this only after some years of interacting and collaborating. On the
more planning level of the school, you need to anticipate it in some way so that it gets into the
system and is prepared for. In fact, it took a lot of overheads in the project in order to get this
established. Afterwards, however, everyone was very happy because you get this interaction
between students already before the workshop. They were in contact via email and via the
website, interacting and sharing ideas.
All this evidently requires intensive planning and it took much more time for staff involved in
the design studio to do this kind of thing. It is not impossible, however, that is why I am giving
you this example, but it does require a huge effort in certain cases to do it. It also implies a
great deal of involvement. Only a couple of students from each design studio in the different
universities attended the workshop, so only a limited number of students went to the workshop,
but of course the others who took part in the preparation and in the debriefing process, they
were all involved in the development of this over the full semester.

Ozgur Dincyurek, Cyprus

My question is directed at Nur Çaglar. I was very impressed by your education model. I was
wondering if you are experiencing any difficulties with the Higher Education Council over
the implementation of this programme because of the different semesters and other issues.
Sometimes, it is very difficult to apply flexible programmes in Turkish universities.

Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

Nur Çaglar, Turkey

There is no problem at all. We are having no difficulty in gaining approval from the Higher
Education Council regarding the restructuring of the programme. However, there are some
practical difficulties of our not having similar schedules to other Turkish universities. Our stu-
dents study for almost eleven months a year; they only have the month of August as a holiday;
it is the same with the faculty also. That of course creates a moral difficulty. Both the students
and the faculty need the holidays to refresh themselves. This makes students hesitate some-
what when choosing the departments of Tobb-ETU university. I hear this from the interviews
both with the alumni and with the incoming students. So the difficulty is not mainly with the
Higher Education Council but from among the other universities, among the faculties and
among the students. If you would like me to go into some more detail about this, I can do so.

Koenraad Van Cleempoel, Belgium

I also have a question, this one is for Russell Light. You mentioned the Life Project, as did Ted
Landsmark from Boston, so you have experience of about a hundred projects with students
in which you did real life programmes and assignments. We have a similar problem in our
university. Because of the crisis, there is a questioning of the local relevance of the university
for society. You also mentioned some international projects in this respect. I was wondering if
you could elaborate a little on that, and on the idea of being embedded within a society while
showing the relevance of your faculty.

Russell Light, United Kingdom

I can certainly say a little more about the Life Projects. One thing I should say at the outset is
that we are very particular about who we will work with as a client. Schools of Architecture
in the UK – and I am sure this is the same across Europe – have many people ringing up the
schools saying they would like a house designed and maybe the students would like to design
it for them for free. We are not interested in those kinds of applications; we do not do work for
private clients. We are very clear that we do not want to take work away from local architects
either. What we have established is something, which has been an evolving policy over the
year with the Life Project. This is that projects must have a social purpose and be relevant to
a community that needs our support. This means we do a lot of projects with local schools,
with charities, with voluntary organisations and so on.
Having done the projects for quite a long time now, we find that those people come to us,
asking us if we will take projects on. As staff, we then discuss the projects with clients, not so
much to establish a brief, but mainly to make sure that there is a viable project that the students
can do within the six-week period that we run the Life Projects. We deliberately do not develop
a brief because we see that as part of the students’ role. When we assess the Life Projects, we
more or less take it for granted that the students will be producing good design work; we do
not really assess them in design. We assess them in their ability to communicate and engage
with the client, to learn from and to listen to the client. We also assess the students on their
ability to develop a good working group amongst themselves, to decide how to structure that
and to make it work over the six-week period.
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

We expect them to programme the project themselves: we do not set what they have to deliver
at the end of the project, they negotiate that with the client themselves. If the client is saying
to them, “I want the whole world delivered in six weeks’ time”, then it is up to our students to
limit the client’s expectations and bring it to a practical level. If, on the other hand, the client
has a very closed view of what might be wanted, then we encourage our students to open the
client’s eyes to other possibilities. The students therefore set the programme for the project
and they also determine with the client what the outcomes are going to be at the end of the
six-week period. They write something like a contract. We also expect the students to have
an awareness of the health and safety implications of the project: they have to set their own
risk assessments, if there is construction work to be done. Students are learning this in the
management modules that they do. That is a brief background to the Life Projects; let me give
you some examples.
Two or three years ago, we worked with a Bangladeshi Flood Relief Organisation where the
students did not go to Bangladesh, but they worked with the charity that was based in London
developing a resources website so that operatives and field workers would have access to all
the resources they needed to put solutions in place at times of crisis there. That was developed
remotely; there was a lot of dialogue with the client in London through Skype in order to explore
that. It is this kind of diversity, which makes the presentations that the students then give to
each other very interesting, because they are not all doing the same thing, or following the same
methodologies. They have to invent or find the appropriate methodologies for their project.
There are other projects, which are very local. Sheffield, as most people probably know, is a
steel city. It has had many problems with declining industry over the last thirty years or more.
Through contacts with the local museum, we found that before the steelworks had been demol-
ished, a lot of the decorative stonework from around the doorways of these buildings had often
had the same motifs on them as the cutlery, which the works produced. If, for example, the
cutlery had a little elephant on them, there would be a little stone elephant on the building. A
load of this stonework had been dumped behind the museum, over a thirty-year period; it was
completely overgrown and no one knew what was there. In that case, the students cleared all
the vegetation; they photographed, drew and measured every stone; they worked out which
stones went together as sets; they researched the city archive to find photographs of the build-
ing the stones came from in order to verify this information. Then they started proposing with
the museum how these stones could be used creatively in the future. The museum wanted
them scattered around potential children’s play space but the students also explored other
possibilities. Because the museum is in an area of urban regeneration, the students explored
how these stones could be used in urban spaces to create more meaningful elements in these
spaces, which were very rooted in the local area. That was another string of projects.
We have also had very “blue-sky thinking” projects. There was one where a non-government
organisation (NGO) represented Yorkshire, our region, and they were exploring a very broad
theoretical question, which was how to regenerate an area. In the UK we have what are called
National Parks, which attract government funding. National Parks have traditionally been areas
where a beautiful character or a special quality has already been observed and a line is drawn
around the park in order to preserve that character through additional resources. The question
we looked at in a project with this organisation was the following: if you were to give National
Park status to an arbitrary part of the United Kingdom, what would happen to that area? Would
236 it accrue a lot of benefit in the same way that happens within National Parks, or would dif-
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

ferent things happen? Students there developed a very broad theoretical project, engaging
many community groups and many local organisations. It was incredibly well-received by the
organisation. The following year, we were then asked as a department to produce another Life
Project, which created an exhibition of that material, so some of these projects are ongoing.
That gives a taste of the kind of variety of projects.

Zdenek Zavrel, Czech Republic

I wanted to ask a question about Erasmus Plus. I do not know if anyone can answer this, but
what is the thinking behind the support for Masters study? Is it directed at the student, who
will get a budget to study in another city? Or is there the intention that there should be some
continuity in relation to his/her own university also? For example, will there be some support
for a double degree?

Johan Verbecke, Belgium

I do not have a document with all the technical details, but what I understood from what I
got is that there will still be the normal Erasmus mobility. Besides that, there will be a new
kind of grant, which allows people to move to another country for the full Masters. That does
not mean another city, but another country. I have no idea about the technicalities of that.

Constantin Spiridonidis, Greece

The idea of supporting the Masters within the European Union is rather an old one. There was
also the Erasmus Mundus action, which supported initiatives oriented towards the structure of
a common Masters. The budget also covered the mobility of the students – some of them, not
all of them – in order for them to be able to participate in this common Masters. The same thing
happened with common Doctorates. When I use the word “common”, this means that three,
four or five schools delivered one Masters course, which was common to all of them. There is
mobility amongst the institutions and also some mobility outside the institutions: that is to
say, people coming from Latin America, China or elsewhere. This action and these activities
were already implemented six or so years ago into the framework of the Erasmus Mundus. I
suspect that the same logic will remain, in other words, that the condition to promote mobility
for the Masters studies is to have this common thing.
That was the political aspect of the European Union, as far as I understand: to organise studies
at Masters and at Doctorate level which would cover a wide spectrum of educational geogra-
phies in order to give a European identity to Masters studies or to Doctoral studies in different
subject areas. It is not clear what the new policy about the Erasmus will be. These educational
projects were based every time upon a political conception of higher education. The aim was to
achieve very specific objectives. This is interesting to reconsider in our discussion: networking,
not only as a set of activities, or as an objective, but primarily as a means of achieving some
kinds of goals. It will therefore be quite interesting in this case to link the discussion we have
with the theme of the conference regarding change, and to ask ourselves if the contemporary
trends in higher architectural education – as they have been developed because of the differ-
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

ent changes which are happening – demand a different form of networking than the one we
have already experienced. This is just a question.
If things change in Schools of Architecture, then quite likely, networking as a value may change.
Networking is spoken about as a value, all these kinds of activities are valuable activities and
they are considered something very important, so since things are changing in the conception
of our educational system, in the contents of architecture and so forth, I wonder whether this
demands new forms of networking. It would be very interesting for the Schools of Architecture,
knowing their own particularities, to define which forms of networking they expect and not to
wait for Erasmus Plus, or whatever, to appear in order to implement those ways of networking.
That was the concept behind the design of this session: to rethink what we are doing. For
example, this room has hosted an activity for many years, and this is a form of networking. Are
we happy with it? Is it enough, or is something different needed? Do we really need this form
of networking? The Association of Schools is another form of networking, but do we need a
different conception of the structure of these associations? Do we need big networks, or small
networks? Should the networks have centralised or decentralised activities? This is a very
interesting question. In our case, EAAE had a very significant crisis. No one could believe that
the reason for this crisis could simply be financial issues; It means that there was something
else behind that. Therefore, if there is a new conception of networking, a new conception of
associations, of bodies and people and schools, institutions and so forth, then this probably
has to be rethought.
Two days ago, we were with some friends in a village outside Chania. Thousands of bees were
circulating, sitting on our food, taking things and disappearing again. This is more or less the
way that we use networking today: like the bees that go and take some food. We come, for
example, to Chania, take something from it, and then disappear. Is there any chance of doing
something more than that? For example, to take the food and then together to reconstruct
something, some new food or something else, like a nest? I think that the question of change,
which is something which has influenced our everyday life, has to bring our understanding
and interest towards that aspect of networking which appears to be a very important part of
our academic activities.
Look at what interesting things have been shown here today! We have to think what we want,
in order to adapt it to what will be offered to us by the European Commission. The European
Commission has its own policy about the conception of education, about the conception of
quality, about the conception of teaching, pedagogy and so forth. But we must not complain
that things are only coming from above, when we are not ready to propose things coming
from a bottom-up logic. This was the invitation to this session, to think about this issue. I hope
that there are some contributions.

Howard Davies, United Kingdom

The comments we have just heard from Constantin are of such huge strategic importance for
the group here that I am now reluctant to intervene, but on a technical detail and on a separate
question, I would like to speak parenthetically, if I may, and then I hope the discussion will turn
to the theme that has just been mentioned. The innovation in Erasmus Plus is the loans scheme
for Masters students. 3.5% of the budget of the €16 billion is allocated to a loan guarantee
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

facility to allow Masters students to undertake their complete courses in another EU member
state. I believe they are thinking in terms of €12,000 for a one-year Masters programme and
€18,000 for a two-year Masters programme. By my calculation roughly – I do not know if I am
right or not – it looks like something like 40,000 loans to be made available over the seven-year
period, which is quite substantial. It is of course for the whole of the curriculum; obviously it
is not for architecture alone.
I think it is important to say that the European Students Union is very hostile to this proposal:
it is against loans in principle; it thinks that not only should the money be more but that the
money which exists should be more equitably distributed. It will be interesting to see the
patterns of take-up for this facility when it comes online. I would say many, but perhaps many
is not the right word. Some countries already operate loans systems for their students, some
have portable grants – those are the richer countries; other have loans systems, and it will be
interesting to see whether those countries which already have domestic loans systems produce
students who are willing to take on even more loans at EU level. It remains to be seen how this
will develop. What are the conditions for a loan? I do not know what these are.
As regards the paying back conditions for the students, these resemble slightly the condi-
tions that exist in England. There is some sort of a pay back holiday immediately after the
successful completion of a course. It is related to the subsequent employment; I think there is
a fifteen-year cut-off point at the end. It is that sort of arrangement, but the technical details
will become available later on. That is a clarification, but I wonder if I might also be allowed
to ask a question, which is about something slightly different. I was very interested in what
Russell said about the use of LinkedIn as an alumni-tracking instrument.
Thinking inevitably of what I was saying yesterday about the directive, I wonder whether the
other panel members have good practice in alumni tracking that they could share with us. If
the Schools of Architecture wish to engage with the directive, as it will be over the next five
years and to lobby for changes, I think it is very important that you have good quality data.
I do not know how many architects currently work across borders in the EU. Russell will no
doubt know how many of his do; he knows how many work in London, he will probably know
how many work in other EU member states. How far this practice is disseminated amongst us,
I have no idea, but if possible I would like to ask.

Koenraad Van Cleempoel, Belgium

That is a question for the panel regarding the use of LinkedIn and the question of tracking

Russell Light, United Kingdom

I will say a little bit. We are probably not in a position to be held up as best practice on this yet.
We have started to encourage our alumni to contact us through this way. This is partly because
we found it difficult to get the information that we needed from the University Central Alumni
Office. Because of data protection measures and so forth, they were unable to share with us
data that they had; we therefore thought we needed to start building up our own. We need
to go a lot further, but it is incredibly helpful. As soon as a student updates their job position,
or what country they are in, they tend to do it on LinkedIn. It is therefore quite easy for us to 239
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

go through and start to find out information. We see it as something we need to build up as
thoroughly as we possibly can; however, this is not something we can do for the alumni, they
have to do it for themselves and indeed, to opt-in to it. Increasingly, however, it is working and
as cohorts leave the school, I think it is very clear to them that they need to be on websites
like that in order to get their CV around in order to find work. It is there for us to use as well.

Constantin Spirionidis, Greece

I think the information you just gave us is extremely important: that the main policy of the
Erasmus Plus related to the Masters will be to support mobility through loans. I would just like to
remind everyone of the discussion which we had some years ago, and that we have had many
times since in this room, that mobility is a means for the political objectives of the European
Union to create the European higher education area. It has very often been mentioned in this
room and by many participants that the Erasmus mobility, which is a short-term mobility, for
a semester or for an intensive programme or something similar, was the initial political objec-
tive of the EU, but after the implementation of Bologna, the mobility between the Bachelor
and the Masters appeared to be the most significant objective in the European Union policy.
In the questionnaires that you were sent and asked to answer, of which we only received
fifteen or so replies, we could see that regarding the question, “How many Bachelor students
continue their studies to Masters level today?”, it appears that there are schools which have a
very small reduction in their number. That is to say, only 5% of the number of Bachelors who
graduate do not continue to Masters level, but the maximum that appeared in this sample
(which is admittedly a very small sample) is 40%. This means that there are schools where
40% of their Bachelor students leave to go to another institution to continue their studies, or
do not continue with their studies at all. Yet because in most of these cases, the Bachelors is
three years, in these cases, the graduates cannot work as architects; this means that one might
suspect that the 40% is mobility to do a Masters in another country.
Let us say that there is a Bachelor graduate from a peripheral university and there is the EU
loan, which gives that student the chance to go to another EU school. What will that school
be? It will certainly be a central school, or a school that has a good reputation. We have often
said that this could lead to something of a transformation in the peripheral universities, trans-
forming them into universities and schools, which prepare Bachelor graduates to fit the central
universities. This means that these schools will become better because they will gather the
best students from all around Europe, while those that are peripheral will remain good for the
East, or good for the West in order to create and produce graduates for the local market. If this
happens, and it certainly seems that there is a kind of policy that will enhance this mobility,
then the question which remains is, how the networking, or the new forms of networking, will
assure the peripheral universities a better position in the future.
Something we have discussed very often in the past is that, for example, one form of networking
could be to have a network where peripheral universities will collaborate with central ones, or
amongst themselves, in order to have a kind of equilibrium, which will be like an agreement.
The agreement might say: we will give you our best students, but you will give us your good
teachers to come in our school in order to improve the educational studies in the periphery. I
therefore think that this logic needs another awareness regarding networking because from
240 my experience, I feel that networking is currently something passive. It happens because there
Session 5 Managing Change: New Forms of Networking for Education and Research

are some opportunities, because we had a very nice dinner with Russell yesterday and so we
discussed creating an exchange and holding a workshop and so forth. But it is without an
actual objective.
This is because we consider that this kind of networking is itself the objective and we can have
a nice time and produce some interesting results; at the same time, however, there is another
level of which we must be aware, and we must have a strategy for this kind of networking.
For this reason, I think we have to think about it and discuss it in order to elaborate upon it in
a more systematic way so as to be able to create networks which will be useful for the future
of our schools in a world which is changing very fast.

Koenraad Van Cleempoel, Belgium

Thank you very much. If there are not any very urgent questions, I would suggest closing this
debate. I would like to thank everyone involved in this session.

Session 6
Synthesis and Conclusions
Session 6 Synthesis and Conclusions

Constantin Spiridonidis, Thessaloniki, Greece

Introductory panel:
Ted Landsmark, Boston, USA
Dag Boutsen, Ghent, Belgium
Cecilie Andersson, Bergen, Norway
Rob Cuyvers, Diepenbeek, Belgium

Session 6 Synthesis and Conclusions

Ted Landsmark, USA

My thanks to everyone who has attended and to those of you who remain here at this moment,
my special thanks to you. I will make three quick comments. The first will be to repeat what I
said in that first session, which picks up on what Constantin just said. The pace of change will
never be this slow again. To repeat: it will never be this slow again. If we are lucky, it will get to
a plateau, but because of the additional networking, the additional data that we all have and
the new media, we are at the slowest point in what the pace of change will be. We need to
figure out how to adapt much more rapidly than we have been doing up to now. We are still
followers and we need to lead change. I came away from that first session and from the overall
conference thinking two things about that.
The first is that we are architects and we are very good at describing what we are doing or what
we have done. In that first session, we spent a lot of our time talking about what each of the
associations was doing at this moment, but we never really got to how we are doing the things
that we are doing. Frankly, I find that to be the case in a great many design conferences that I
attend. Someone starts to speak, they show their work, it is wonderful work, and at the end of
the presentation, you still do not really know how they got there. All you know is that the work
is wonderful. I think that in our panel, we suffered from the same presentation malaise, that is
to say, each of us talked about what our particular association does, but we did not really get
to the question of how we are supporting individual schools in terms of managing change.
Therefore my first major observation is that all of us need to move more quickly to a discussion
of how we are doing what we are doing rather than simply focusing on what we are doing.
The “how” tends to come in these conferences when we leave this space and go to lunch or
supper. It is then that people really get engaged with talking about the processes that lead
to the results that we show. I would hope that we would all learn, starting with myself, to be
better at getting quickly to a description of how we are managing change rather than simply
saying that change is taking place around us and that we are somewhat dismayed by its pace.
The second thing I would say, and I think it goes to that same question or issue, is around the
subtext of this conference, which is to say, we need to collaborate with each other better than
we do at this moment. Collaboration is intrinsically a political process and as designers most of
us are somewhat loathe to say that the work we do is intrinsically political. But the bottom line,
for all of us, is that there are forces which are affecting all of our schools: declining enrolments,
new technologies, the responsibility to find new ways of meeting curriculum change, findings
new ways of doing fund raising, all of that is different for us than it was even five years ago. Yet
many of us continue to act as though we can address and solve those problems by ourselves,
but we just cannot do that anymore.
Collaborative activity is essential; a lot of the work that Constantin and Maria have done over
the past few years has really been about trying to facilitate how we collaborate with each
other better. That goes firstly to how the European schools work with each other and take
advantage of the resources that each of the schools has without having to duplicate those
resources, and then it goes to how we go about collaborating across traditional boundaries,
whether those boundaries are national boundaries, or age boundaries, or technology access
boundaries, or a range of other boundaries. The reality is, as we saw last year, our students are
already transcending those boundaries better than we are in almost every instance. Whatever
the parallel strategies that we use in each of our schools or in each of our countries or in each
of our programmes to develop and nurture our own programmes, we all know that if we had
Session 6 Synthesis and Conclusions

all collaborated on certain issues three or four years ago that were raised at this conference,
then some of the larger regulatory bodies could not have gotten away with trying to impose
new standards on the European schools in the way that they have.
I would like to conclude by saying that part of the reason that the American schools which were
here have already expressed to me satisfaction with what the National Architectural Accredit-
ing Board has done in terms of changing accreditation standards for the 120-odd American
schools, part of the reason that they are satisfied is that they have gotten virtually everything
they wanted. The reason that they have gotten that is that we as regulators recognised that
we had to be open and transparent and had to share information, had to ask people to submit
white papers to us, had to do the research that goes on in the schools but have the schools
do that research and then we had to be quiet and listen to what the schools felt needed to
happen. As a consequence, the schools ended up getting some things they were not even
expecting to get, like longer terms of accreditation and more openness in terms of the process
to recognise alternative career paths.
What we had put out there is far from perfect, but it reflects what the schools told us they
needed to have in order to move forward. It seems to me that you as a group, and the group
that was here for that opening session, are the ones who to a large extent can set the agenda
for what should really be going on, but it means that we have to leave this space with a sense
that we can disagree about many things, which is perfectly acceptable, but that there really is
common ground that exists across our schools and we need to share that and then we need
to collaborate in political ways in order to move an agenda forward that is beneficial to our
programmes and to our students. Thank you once again for the opportunity to be here and
for the fantastic work that has been done here. There is much work to be done in architecture
and in architectural education.

Dag Boutsen, Belgium

I would like to pick up on what has just been said and to relate it to the session of the day
before yesterday on academic leadership and teaching. This kind of meeting, the sort held
by ENHSA as well as the EAAE, represents kinds of associations where ideas are exchanged;
this is what is written as part of the general explication of what EAAE, for instance, is meant
for. I feel we are indeed exchanging some information. The next aim is to improve knowledge
about the things, which are discussed. Improving means changing in that way, in the same
way that was being discussed. Are we really able to improve our mechanisms of thinking and
working, discussing things the way we discuss them now? Just as … we said there is a delay
in the way we follow the changes and that forces are affecting our schools, I think, and it has
been clear throughout the presentations in the three days but also in all the discussions peo-
ple have had amongst themselves that there are indeed very important forces affecting our
schools relating back to this academic subject of leadership and teaching, academicisation is
one of the largest, most important forces happening I believe in these years and it is actually
endangering a lot of educational systems we are coming from.
I think that in fifty years’ time the profession of architecture will have changed and historians
will look back on this period as the one where the switch is going on. An agenda needs to be
moved forward, therefore; as has just been said, there is work to be done. In our group, people
246 talked about more in-depth knowledge, for teachers, for instance; there was a suggestion
Session 6 Synthesis and Conclusions

the day before yesterday of integrating leadership into PhDs in order to be able to follow and
manage these changes.
These are just some examples. But let me try to draw a parallel with some comments made by
Anne-Mette in Aarhus. In describing with her beautiful drawings the new curricula in Aarhus,
she talked about many things, but there were three things on which I would like to focus: these
are the three things, which were asked of students. One was that we force students to seek
knowledge outside the discipline; the next one was that students are asked to take a stand;
the third one was that students have to see the relevance of the profession.
Let me try to take these three elements and catapult them back onto us. Are we, within this
kind of conference, able to force ourselves to seek knowledge outside the discipline? Next time,
why not invite people from medical faculties? There is this analogy of medical education where
the balance between the practice and the scientific research, for instance, is totally different
in many universities to those in other classical faculties. They have discovered other ways of
structuring universities in order to create a perfect balance between the practice that is linked
to the gigantic responsibility which medical people have, similar to architectural responsibilities
in most of the countries. They have installed an educational environment in a lot of countries,
academic hospitals where the whole system is structured in such a way that there is no longer
a boundary between practice and research-based education.
The other group of people that is very close to us are those people belonging to arts institutes.
Talking to people over these past three days, it becomes apparent that in a lot of countries the
link between art and architecture has now been broken. In Belgium this is certainly the case. I
run a faculty where now, because of non-integration in the university of the arts faculty and yet
integration of architecture, structurally there is now a high wall between us. Whereas we have
always believed that there is this link and so we are trying to break down the wall. Whether it
is about education, curricula, research-based education, why not next time invite many more
people from the arts or, as has been suggested in previous conferences, what about the link
between, for instance, ENHSA, EAAE and ELIA, the League of Institutes of Arts? These are my
thoughts on us reaching out beyond the discipline.
The second one states that students are asked to take a stand in Aarhus and I would imag-
ine in many other schools. This is something that has been tried in our faculty also. But how
does one make a stand? Is an association like this one, or a group of people like us, not able
to make clearer statements in order to take a stand? The idea of advocacy groups has been
discussed, but how can we go on in building up a kind of – I cannot translate the Dutch word,
but it roughly suggests a carrying capacity – in order to make these kinds of meetings useful
outside the immediate environment and within our own different schools and universities and
countries? Should we not be thinking of trying to make some more public statements based
on talks, on agreements, on debates?
Mapping things through questionnaires is one thing, but it obviously needs debates. As in the
day before yesterday, I repeat that I think one of the very interesting things that has happened
over the last years was the group that worked on research and which came out with some kind
of a charter. Can the useful concept of a charter not be used more? It could be used, for exam-
ple, in agreements, as I said, clear statements that can be used by everyone on, for instance, the
implementation of this change of academic education throughout Europe. The third question
relating to the point about students actually having to see the relevance of their profession, I 247
Session 6 Synthesis and Conclusions

feel and I hope and I am sure next year we can be quite clear about the relevance of something
like this. This is because I feel that at the moment, and especially for me, this sense of relevance
is really missing – I hope this is not becoming a kind of irrelevant group.

Cecilie Andersson, Norway

My role here is definitely as a newcomer, so I will leave it to the others to draw those broader
lines and to see the discussion in relation to what may have been discussed previously and
they are both in relation to proportions and prospects of the whole discussion. As a newcomer
to Chania, it has been very obvious and apparent that this is such a generous format for a
newcomer, a gentle format and valuable in different ways. It is a forum to meet deans but also
architects, so the idea of bridging that was discussed in the session, which I am representing
is also present here in the forum.
Drawing on the presentation of Marcos Cruz, the Bergen School of Architecture which I repre-
sent is like some little speedboat: it is small, it is independent and it is thrilling for us to imagine
that we can sail around with all these big tankers and large cargo ships. All these different
boats were represented in Marcos’s presentation, displayed one by one, but the sea is a very
good ground for interaction.
Coming from Norway, I believe this is a very clear metaphor for us: the sea represents a com-
mon ground for all of us to come together. It can be seen in the way that we have organised
our cities, where there are always common streets connecting the routes to the mountain areas
with the routes to the sea, and that is where we find our resources. Norway – Norwegian – is
the way to the north; it represents the safe waterways and also the place where one interacts
and connects. Here I am showing one of the most important Norwegian paintings from the
national consolidating era; there are many different variations of this picture. It is of a bridal
journey through the fjords. In some of the versions, there is one single boat and that boat is on
its way to the church. In this version, however, there are people who come from different places,
they come from different sides of the shore and they meet at sea: that is where the event is
taking place. It represents that mobile, flexible, dynamic network which was also commented
on by Johan Verbecke talking about networks and initiatives and ways of expanding the field.
I would also like to link to one of the other contributions, the same one that Dag commented
on, in the discussion of session three: it is about the Aarhus school method. To me, their reor-
ganisation of the school was one of the very points of being curious within this seminar, being
curious about the way to expand the field and to interpret the field and the way that we can
operate within the sea. It is about how we perceive education and it is about how we can
already start now to look forward to the next session when we will be able to hear updates on
how all these unpredicted benefits, or at least reactions to this changing platform are occur-
ring. That is related to how it is run by the teachers, but just as much, what kind of responses
the students give to this new shift.
I think one of the most important outcomes of the discussion on the platform base is that
the students become aware of the broader discussion of their field both within education
and within the projects. That is where it starts to link up with the bridge between their edu-
cational situation and the profession in which they will work later. The last thing I would like
to say is that I am now also very much looking forward to the next session, where I hope for
Session 6 Synthesis and Conclusions

even more discussions that will manage to bridge other challenges that we are facing, which
include sustainability issues that were addressed earlier. Otherwise we might have to cling
to this option and this strength we have: even being within a big tanker, we always have this
lifeboat, so we can choose to operate on different levels of manoeuvring. Although you have
a big ship, you also have the small ones.

Rob Cuyvers, Belgium

I would like to present a general impression of the whole of the Chania 2013 conference. I
am the dean of the Faculty of Architecture and Arts of the University of Hasselt in Belgium. I
genuinely think that Chania 2013 was very fruitful. On the one hand, there was a new Council;
they spent three days working hard for a new and bright future for the EAAE, a new focus for
the next ten years. All the Schools of Europe need a strong EAAE to represent us. I would like
to thank the Council for the work they have already done and for the work that they will be
doing. On the other hand, we have listened carefully to three keynote speakers, who in my
opinion were very strong. Last but by no means least, I would like to thank everyone here
for the contribution you have made to this conference and especially of course to Maria and
Constantin for facilitating it.
We have felt over the last few days that we are all in the midst of continuing change. Everyone
faces change in his or her own way. This was underlined by Marcos Cruz: we all do it, and have
to do it, each of us in our own way. The one is a big tanker, so the process of change will be
slower. The other, like his school, is a very technological cargo ship. We, in our faculty, feel
more like a solid sailing ship: well-built in the tradition of architecture, and moving in a strong
relation with the context, or the wind and the water; engagement with architecture as Anne-
Mette Boye defined it. We learnt these days that each school has its own learning outcomes:
the one is more focused on parametric design and technologically advanced architecture; the
other on a more cultural and historical context, as Per Olaf explained in his beautiful speech.
Sunday morning we started with a very interesting keynote speech from Alfonso Gomez.
Often, as Dag also said, we talk here in this conference about the importance of crossover and
interdisciplinary working, but most of the time we discuss matters only amongst ourselves,
architects and teaching professionals. The keynote speech dealt with the importance of inno-
vation and the key elements of innovation. It outlined the three main sources of innovation:
technology, business models and design, but with the user in the centre, as illustrated by
the image that was presented. It stressed the role that architecture can play in innovation.
Architecture has even the best tradition in design, in thinking, in doing, and in making. This is
related to thinking by doing, as many speakers presented. The field of architecture also brings
a range of professions besides the traditional roles; architects can also take on specific and
different roles in society, supported by courses such as the PhD and leadership courses that
were mentioned by Art Rice from the USA.
There were many presentations on different learning methods; in many presentations, col-
laboration projects with external partners were shown. For example, there were presenta-
tions about the people of Porto, the collaborative education with constructors as Nur Canglar
presented, and the Life projects in Sheffield. As a method, Anne-Mette told us a new way of
organising can lead to a new way of thinking. In the presentations, the three elements of archi-
tectural teaching were always present: the head, the hand and the heart, each in relation to 249
Session 6 Synthesis and Conclusions

the other. The head represents knowledge: knowledge of construction, of materials, of theories
and history, science, art and so forth. The hand represents the doing, the making, the making
of models, drawing, drawing designs and presentations, computer-created design, biometric
design and even constructing buildings on a full scale, as we saw. The heart represents the
passion for architecture and for people. It is the heart that creates a better world; it is also the
passions of the teachers as stressed by Per Olaf.
In my opinion, the challenge of the next years will be found in these elements. There will be
more research into teaching methods, the “how” as Ted Landsmark said. There will be more
research related to the hand, to design itself CAD, drawing, modelling; but there will also be
more research related to the heart. This is a human-centred design. In our faculty, we focus on
research into universal design, design for all and human experience. It will be an important
challenge for the next years to focus on human-centred design. We heard the heart in the
speech given by Per Olaf, who stressed the value of man, culture and nature, as well as in the
presentation of human-centred innovative design of Alfonso Gomez. This is also related to the
democratic attitude that Cecile Andersson and also Ted Landsmark outlined: let us be open,
let us collaborative.
Recreate spaces, homes and environments for humankind, for our fathers and our mothers,
for our children and for the world. To end my summary of what I will take home from Chania
2013, I would like to repeat the advice of Sally Stewart from Glasgow. Take risks, make mistakes,
value the individual but also outlaw overworking.

Constantin Spiridonidis, Greece

Thank you to the entire panel for those nice closing comments. The floor is now open for fur-
ther comments. It would be nice to have a discussion about the themes and ideas that were
presented over the past few days.

Russell Light, United Kingdom

If Schools of Architecture are ships of varying sizes and manoeuvrability, is ENHSA a lighthouse
or a faros? More specifically, should it be casting a more intensely focused beam in order to
illuminate the rocks, or dangers, that potentially face architectural education?

Adalberto del Bo, Italy

I would just like to make an observation. I feel it is a very serious mistake not having EAAE on
the panel for the decision about the amended directive. But I have a draft of the things that
were said, possibly the last one as perhaps the paper will be approved tomorrow. In the ninth
point, words have been added regarding sustainable development. In some way, therefore,
there is something. The others are the same. But it is a great shame that they are not here
because EAAE is an association, but an association of institutions. This means we have an
institutional statement that it is important that Europe will recognise and also that we hear
and that we recognise.

Session 6 Synthesis and Conclusions

Constantin Spiridonidis, Greece

I think this is exactly the point. It is the only body in Europe representing Schools of Architec-
ture: this is extremely important. This is the role of the association.

Adalberto del Bo, Italy

In my opinion this is something obvious, but sometimes it is better to repeat things. All the
institutional activities have to be set by EAAE. This is what we have to try to rebuild together.
I would like to underline this aspect.

Constantin Spiridonidis, Greece

Since there are no further remarks from the audience on this matter, allow me to return to this
collaborative suggestion which was suggested by Ted and was related to the other subject
areas and disciplines. I would like to ask Rob, who comes from an institution where the school
of architecture is a School of Architecture and Arts, what kind of links and articulations you as
a school of architecture have with the other departments that come under the broad name
of Arts. What kind of collaboration exists and what is the synergy between these two different
subject areas, which are no longer so different from each other?

Rob Cuyvers, Belgium

We are of course a brand new faculty; we have been in existence for three months, so we have
to be careful when talking about it. But one of the important elements that we emphasise
is that of cooperation in research. The way of thinking about research is research by design
within art. It is a similar process and if you start a debate on research by design, on global
architecture, it is very important that we talk to such a discipline as art. They follow the same
processes as we do here; everywhere in the world they are talking about research by art. I
therefore think it is very important that if we have themes to discuss such as research, then
we involve them in this process.

Constantin Spiridonidis, Greece

Therefore the answer is that this synergy is on the research level.

Rob Cuyvers, Belgium

That is true, but it is also important to note that there is also a lot of common thinking between
art and architecture. If you think of sketching and drawing, if you look at the exhibition down-
stairs, it is like the exhibitions made by the arts departments; they hold similar exhibitions.
There is a lot of conceptual thinking, which is the same in art as it is in architecture. The same
can also be said of educational methods.

Session 6 Synthesis and Conclusions

Constantin Spiridonidis, Greece

May I ask Dag the same question, concerning the previous experience of the school belonging
to a more art-dominated environment?

Dag Boutsen, Belgium

I think a lot of schools of architecture or educators in architecture are embedded in a structure
where decisions or the finances are distributed and allocated according to numbers, or let us
say, indicators. We live in an era of performance indicators. But how do you talk about per-
formance indicators on the level of research, on the level of education, on the level of services
to the community or to society in general? There, what happens in relationship to the arts is
very interesting also.
Research indicators are being debated across the whole world; the pressure of publication
is just one of these. But as you remember, in the research charter text created here, we talk
about peers and it is only peers who can examine these kinds of matters. Do we therefore dare
to talk again about what kind of peer model systems we can think of, perhaps in relation to
other disciplines and certainly to the arts, in defining whether the indicators are going up or
down? For instance, what about education itself? If you study law, you can seat 500 people in
an auditorium; architecture however cannot be taught like that. Take the opposite case: two
people cannot play on one piano at the same time.
These kinds of differences and balances are also a kind of very interesting relationship towards
arts because there is the old way of teaching that will never wholly disappear and which can
never be entirely done away with. Talking about ships and a lighthouse: even in a small ship,
you have to organise your crew. Are they individually located in the cabins, or are they located
three together? Social impact is the third thing, which is very much interrelated with the arts.
Both they and we have to redefine a new language in indicating what kind of impact what we
do in schools, has on society.
Commissions that look to educational systems where the professional practice is embed-
ded have not had until now any kind of decent format or framework in trying to describe
why a school is doing well or not. It is not as easy as the Apple story where the number of
i-phones sold provide the indicator of performance. Then again, there are schools here, of
which Sheffield is a nice example, of socially engaged policy; others are doing the exact
Yesterday evening, in a nice restaurant by the beach, we were talking about the absolutely
huge difference in culture between American institutes, especially in California, and European
ones. This is especially noticeable when it comes to the appreciation of technology. How can
you indicate that you are doing well? That is why the link with arts is so important: they are
our closest friends and partners in exploring and dealing with the same kind of matters as
we are. If we are not able to find the best indicators, I feel we are lost. For that is how all the
policy makers on a big scale and all the universities now work: they do not appreciate blah-
blah, us explaining like cowboys or Indians or boat people how good we are, they actually
want to see it.

Session 6 Synthesis and Conclusions

Juhani Katainen, Finland

Thank you; it was nice to come here again. This is the fifteenth time for me. I would like to
return to the basics and to what Vitruvious said: Firmitas, Utilitas, Vanustas We should use all
of those three terms when looking back and looking forward in what we are discussing today
concerning art, technology and architecture. They are very good words and we all know them
well. There is also a new future there, however. If we want to be very critical, we can find our
future there.

Ramon Sastre, Spain

Over these last days, we have talked about one of the characteristics of architecture, about
multi-disciplinary activity. This morning, networking was discussed; we are now talking about
this combination of arts and architecture. Yet when we talk about teamwork for our students,
what exactly do we mean? Are we thinking of the way in which the profession works? Big
studios have a lot of people there, all working together. We try to introduce our students to
teamwork by putting them to work in groups. But these are groups of students of architecture.
Many of these international programmes, or IPs in architecture such as Erasmus, are between
schools of architecture. We know people, but all of them are students of architecture. It seems
it is quite difficult to mix students.
I remember, almost twenty years ago, when I met Pierre von Meiss in a cluster of polytechnic
universities in Europe, I was in charge of the Department of Construction and Civil Engineering.
We tried to do something: we tried to hold some workshops mixing together students of archi-
tecture and civil engineering because that was the only thing we could do in the polytechnic.
The workshop was held. Then, for some years, I tried to maintain contact with the school of
civil engineers in my university but it was extremely difficult to mix the students and teachers.
In the School of Arts, we have the opportunity to mix with arts schools; in the polytechnics
we have the opportunity to mix with engineers, but unfortunately we do not do this. I cannot
understand why not. When we think about these intensive programmes, these workshops
mixing students, we have to mix not just with engineers, but with any type of students – the
same thing as when we work in our professional office, not only in our schools. We talk about
multidisciplinary working yet we do not actually make this happen within the schools.

Constantin Spiridonidis, Greece

This is the reason that I put this question to Rob and Dag, seeing that they are already in
this kind of environment to understand which kinds of collaborations have been developed
between them. I recently had the opportunity to be in a school which was in a Faculty of
Architecture and Arts, and within that, there was a School of Architecture, of Dance, a School
of Fine Arts and a School of Design. I asked if there were any collaborations amongst them,
or any common courses, something which brought these people together. The answer was
that there was absolutely nothing. They were separate institutions, each of which had its own
curriculum structure and there was no kind of collaboration between the separate schools. I
thought this was incredibly interesting.

Session 6 Synthesis and Conclusions

Nicolau Brandao, Portugal

If you talk about research, there are those who promote PhD students in Arts. So we are work-
ing together in research. If you look to collaboration between arts and architecture, it does
not always have to be in the classes or in the studios. It can also be done through invitations
to artists, to people who may give speeches. We also had a Master class in the theory of archi-
tecture and arts together. It can be done, but it is not easy to achieve.

Constantin Spiridonidis, Greece

I apologise for insisting on sticking to this theme a little longer, but in all previous years, this
session has become the primary material for the ideas for the next conference. It is for this
reason that I would like to clarify some issues.

Nicolau Brandao, Portugal

I would just like to offer some brief comments. Amongst the subjects, which we were talk-
ing about, such as dance and music, for me, it is arts, which has the most in common with
architecture. Most of the time, there is not a real, direct link. Yet in the first role we have here
with this presentation, we have for instance photography or graphic design or video, which
are very near to architecture, experience and communications and so forth. For this reason, it
is important to deal with it. The experience, certainly until last year, within our school, whose
studies include theatre, painting and studies in photography and video, was rather interesting.
Most of the Erasmus students had come to our school from La Cambre, from Bath, from Helsinki,
from Gothenburg and so forth. In order to fulfil the credits they had to do, they searched for
courses in disciplines other than architecture; we naturally allowed them to do this. It is very
good that there are scientific borders, which accept that and they do so quite easily. There is
scenography, which we have as part of theatre studies and Erasmus students may follow this.
It is a very valuable experience for them.

Rob Cuyvers, Belgium

I would also like to think about interior architecture. There is a lot to do in cooperation with
interior architecture; part of the future in architecture will also be in interior architecture. This
will happen within the next year I believe, so there is also a big partner there.

Maria de Fatima Fernades, Portugal

I would like to make a comment, which complements that of Nikolaou Brandau. We have also
changed our curriculum. In the past, we allowed only the Erasmus students to follow other
disciplines through the other courses. We thought about it and then asked ourselves why our
own students could not also follow programmes from the other courses. As a result, we have
changed our curriculum; the changes will take effect as from next year.
Our students always want to go to do cinema studies, to improve their speech and visual
performance by following speech and drama courses, or through theatre courses, to attend
Session 6 Synthesis and Conclusions

courses where they work with printing materials to improve their relationship with graphic
design. We then also, through the year, work with cinema and organise some cinema studies;
these are, however, talks about cinema with architecture. We also look at photography because
photography is of course very close to architecture. Yet we also have engineering courses.
I think the relation with the arts courses is very important: we certainly have the technical
capabilities within our schools but these other specialities give a greater perspective than if
they were not available.

Marvin Malecha, USA

I would firstly like to thank you. I think that we are at an extremely critical point in the con-
versation. Up until this time, we have been speaking in a very homogeneous way about who
comes to the study of architecture and whether they stay in architecture. We are therefore
assuming a very homogeneous kind of person and profession. My college is very diverse in
the disciplines: we do study in a common way in the first year; we do have an inter-disciplinary
PhD programme; we do a lot of things across disciplines. The screen showed some of the
changes in the demographics of who is applying for architecture programmes in the United
States, but in my college, the fastest growing discipline is the discipline called Design Studies,
which is a non-studio based discipline.
The students are individuals who in their first four years of college are not interested in engag-
ing in specific studies in any professional discipline: their interest lies in ranging across the
whole university, sampling things, in a way. This is because they do not want to get into a very
straight and narrow thread to start studying a profession immediately. I think that sometimes
we as architects get trapped into these meetings really trying very hard to recreate ourselves
and to recreate the discipline as it has been. Yet the truth is that the people we are educating
and preparing for the future are going to change jobs ten or fifteen times! This is a shock.
This is not my generation. They are not interested necessarily in moving up the ranks as a
recognised professional. We think they are all after becoming an architect, but they are not!
There is only a very small proportion of them that want to be a star architect; most of them
are very entrepreneurial, they are very agile, they are willing to range across disciplines inside
of a college like mine. They want to undertake different courses. Somebody comes in to study
architecture, but they could just as easily end up studying fashion design in my college; in
fact, we have an example of that right now on national television, with a young man who is
competing in a show called Project Runway. He is a graduate of the architecture programme,
but he is a fashion designer.
I think we have to start to understand that there is a discipline in the profession that we teach
but the people we are teaching are not necessarily going to practise in the ways that we have
done. They are in fact looking at the world in a completely different way. They are not necessar-
ily interested in getting licensed in the traditional sense in the way we were when we graduated
from school. They are not necessarily interested in accepting a traditional role. They are not
necessarily interested in working for free, or almost for free in a slave labour market, which is
pretty close to what our profession does to them in their early years, because they can actually
earn more money working for a real estate broker or for a bank, or within a corporate setting.

Session 6 Synthesis and Conclusions

I think we really need to rethink this notion, because I feel we tend to believe that architectural
education is way too much like a silo. It is almost as if there is some great procession to the
temple: we lead you to the sunset and the sun will rise and you will be blessed and the sun
will hit your face and you will become an architect and you will live in this glorified role! This
is not what these young people are thinking: they are far more agile than we were when we
graduated from school. They are far more able to make adjustments with new technologies and
think differently. I truly appreciated the presentation by Sally Stewart from Glasgow, because
she asked the fundamental question: how is the student of her time different from the student
of this time? I have not heard that very much at this conference.
I think that if we are going to talk about the future, we have to talk about that. There is one thing
which I worry about deeply, about what I heard yesterday in the presentation: schools that
adopt four years and then go two more years in some form of unmanaged internship. We are
inviting amazing abuse of the most precious resource of our profession and that is the young
people. Basically, they are going to have to work for free! This is something, which is ethically
wrong. It is ethically wrong to take young people down a very narrow path in their education so
that when they graduate, they have no further understanding of the breadth of their education.
There is a reason why young people are going into courses on Design Thinking as opposed to
courses in a specific architectural profession. They are smart enough to know that in the new
world, they are going to have to be very agile. This agility is what the future is about. Our profes-
sion is changing so fast from when I came out of school forty years ago to what is happening
today. My daughter, who works at Perkins +Will in Chicago, talks about a smart section. When I
drew a section when I came out of school, there was nothing smart about it, it was just a linear
drawing. But she talks about a smart section because she can click on a piece of Revit and it can
pop up and tell her what is going on in the whole building relative to that detail. That is not
just a neutral thing: that is a whole different way of thinking. I truly believe that if we are going
to survive as a leading discipline in design, we are going to have to do something about that
kind of thinking and stop talking about ourselves as though we live in some sort of protected
silo. The time of protected silos is over. I think we have to get over that.
I was laughing yesterday: when I graduated from school, the image of an architect was, first
of all, male – something which was already tragic. We all had arm patches on our elbows, we
were all supposed to smoke a pipe and have hair of a certain length until you got to a certain
age when you did not have hair anymore! It was never about females, it was never about
blacks, it was never about any kind of diversity: it was always about a particular person of a
particular type. Young people are coming into the profession today, women are coming into
the profession today who want families, they want a life. They see the world in broader terms
and as educators we have to understand that. If we do not, we will lose them! We are losing
them, in fact.

Pierre von Meiss, Switzerland

I am a little bit suspicious when one suggests that art should be one of our future guests here.
This is because I already have the impression that in 40% of the European schools, too much
effort is invested in making the students believe that they are doing art, especially in the first
years. In the American schools it is even higher, even worse. In that sense, I rather agree with
256 Adolf Loos, who said that there are only two objects of art in architecture: the monument and
Session 6 Synthesis and Conclusions

the tomb. The rest of architecture has somewhere to be useful to man, not only to meaning
but useful to man, to occupation and so forth. I think we have not to forget that. Even the
Bartlett must teach this: somehow, to find a way to get the student to feel responsible for
making useful buildings, or useful gardens, or useful landscapes.
This implies making a landscape where the new thoroughfare or highway will take the right
trace in order to confirm an existing limit rather than creating an arbitrary, new limit. I think
these are very important things that we can do, but this is always linked to use: use of the
territory, use of land and use of space. I think this is what really distinguishes architecture
from art. It also means that as architects, we are not more linked to art than we are linked to
nanotechnologies. I think that both are useful for us; both help us but I would not put more
weight on one than on the other. That is my point of view in comparison to those two who
spoke here in favour of art as the best associate of architecture.

Dag Boutsen, Belgium

I would like to say something here. I do not think I was talking about architecture in the neigh-
bourhood of art as an essential part, I was just mentioning how we can help each other in
tackling the challenges we are both facing structurally. Allow me to give an example. Two years
ago I heard from a Danish Commission that had looked into ten years of change in architec-
tural education in this academisation process. They wanted to see whether the profession had
changed because the education had changed. The answer was that yes, it had. They concluded
that since there is more research and research-based education in all the Danish schools, all
these young people, when they go and work in offices, influence the offices. The architects that
are working there are also influenced; there is a new and better way of rationalising thought,
of building up arguments and so on. The architect offices win more competitions. However,
the lady from the commission said that there are two things we, in the world, should not forget
in this evolution of academisation and with regard to employing staff in architectural schools.
Rule number one was, always employ from the field of practice, not just an academic. Rule
number two, never forget rule number one!
Here it is really very similar to the arts. For, if commissions like this discover that you need in a
complementary way both a certain amount of classic academic research, and real practition-
ers from the realm of practice, then the point is that if the arts are also faced with these kinds
of challenges, how can we learn from each other and forget about architects being artists
and opposite to each other? In fact, the multidisciplinary approach across disciplines is also
something of a danger. We educate people in one discipline – history, chemistry, architecture
– and naturally all of these disciplines are positioned in relation to all the other disciplines, but
they should not be mixed up. Architecture takes at least five years, ten years even, so do not
mix it up with some other disciplines.
As a matter of fact, in Belgium, where architects hardly earn anything, they are on the low-
est starting income of businesses, even lower than a nurse, 95% of our students become
an architect at the beginning of his or her career. After ten years, there is a drop-out. This is
connected to the fact that they are inspired throughout the five years and admire in a way
knowing or not knowing what it is all about. Architecture will still be in the next centuries one
of the most appealing disciplines for all eighteen-year-old people. It has been proven that it
is still one of the top choices made by eighteen-year-olds. Architecture looks sexy. Nobody 257
Session 6 Synthesis and Conclusions

knows what it is. So, do not mix it up! That is another thing I wanted to say about the danger
of cross-disciplinary studies and teaching. However, to return to the topic of art for a moment,
let us learn from each other, but structurally, not content-wise, or discipline-wise.

Herman Neuckermans, Belgium

We can discuss the issue of the relationship between architecture, art and engineering on the
institutional level, which somehow was what was presented there. I personally think that we
should look at this relationship content-wise on the level of design thinking. This artistic com-
ponent as well as the engineering or technological components has to be embedded in this
design thinking. For me, this is fundamental. This is more important than institutional things,
which may appear to rule the system.

Jean François Mabardi, Belgium

The closing session of this meeting is supposed to discuss questions for next year. I would
like to go further and say, let us not just think about next year, but the year after. What are we
going to think about? What questions do we have? I agree with most of what was said, but I
did not feel at all comfortable with the pessimistic tone. Allow me to tell you why. I am older
than you and I have seen many reforms; I have seen many schools, some with art, some with-
out, some with engineering. We have a treasure and we still have it. What is this? It is a way of
looking at things, of mixing and of using the past to work for the future. That is one thing. We
also use different disciplines to make our work. It therefore makes us very special in the way
we think, in the way we look at things and in the way we evaluate things. We have a syncretic
view, not a synthetic view. We have a syncretic view, which is able to look at something to try
to understand it without knowing all the details. And that is important. It gives that syncretic
perspective. It is fantastic, it is what our schools do, even if they do not know what they are
doing. They give us this kind of perception and the kind of thinking which allows us to work as
architects, as urban designers, or whatever we are doing. Some of them are what we call good
architects, whatever that is, but let us keep that baby. If reforms are made, do not let us throw
the baby out with the bathwater. What is the baby? That is the question for the years to come.

Leen van Duin, Netherlands

Please, listen. I agree with you. I would like to remind you of the Venice Biennale in 1980. The
title was “The Presence of the Past”. Perhaps the next meeting could concentrate on using the
past for the future.

Konstantinos Moraitis, Greece

I can hear a query about the “baby”, to which I would like to respond. I have been working as
a professional architect since 1978, and as a tutor and then professor since 1983. I may say,
sincerely, that I feel it is much easier to be a professor, or a tutor than to be a professional
architect, especially in countries like Greece. What do I mean by this? Many of us tutors feel
it is much easier to be doing other things than working on real architecture without so much
258 money. What does this actually mean? It means that in some years, we will have to create
Session 6 Synthesis and Conclusions

smaller schools, concentrating on the central point of the building of architecture. This is the
baby! This has been the central condition of the construction of the works in society over the
last two thousand years! What has to be preserved is building design. It is a very complicated
skill and a very responsible skill. I think this is the baby. We may create all sorts of polygamic
relations. When I was younger, I liked this sort of relationship very much, but there is a problem.
You cannot create a baby, you cannot bring up and develop the baby.

Peter Gabrijelčič, Slovenia

Lastly, we cannot forget that in most of the schools we are part of the university and what the
university teaches is for students to be educated, to be intellectual. After that, you become a
professional. This is a common ground, I think, and this is essential.

Constantin Spiridonidis, Greece

This is the essential closing of this discussion. I sometimes feel that we depart from the agenda,
we look to other things that we discuss all the time, but it was nice to have this constructive
atmosphere that was created at the end of this meeting. Maria and I would like to express
our sincere thanks for your presence, for your contributions, for your energy and for coming
all this way to participate in these discussions. Our thanks also to the chairpersons who had
the additional task of coordinating debates after the sessions and to those who gave short
presentations on the themes of this year’s agenda.

Maria Voyatzaki, Greece

I would like to add my thanks to those of Constantin. Additionally, allow me to mention one
word: confidence. I feel it is important to say, very concisely, that to us, this year, this particular
meeting has been the most important meeting of Heads in Chania. It has been the most impor-
tant professional experience for both of us because we see in your eyes faith and confidence
in us, and it is for this that we would like to thank you all.

List of
List of participants

Ahlava, Antti, Head of Department of Architecture, Aalto University, Miestentie 3, Espoo,

Finland. Tel: (+)358 50 324 1179, e-mail:
Amourgis, Spyros, President, The Athens School of Fine Arts, 42 patision street, Athens, Greece.
Tel: 30(210)3897108, e-mail:
Andersson, Cecilie, Rector, Bergen School of Architecture, po box 39, Bergen, Norway.
Tel: (+)4755363880, e-mail:
Bachmann, Balint, Dean, University of Pecs, Poolack Mihaly Faculty of Engineering and
Information Technology, Boszorkany u.2., Pecs, Hungary. Tel: (+)3672211968,
Balogh, Balazs, Professor Dr. Habil DLA, Head of the department of design, Budapest University
of Technology and Economics, Muegyetem RKP. 3. K.EP. III.EM.20, Budapest,
Hungary. Tel: (+)3614633048, e-mail:
Bogdanescu, Zeno, Dean, University of Architecture and Urban Planning “Ion Mincu”, Academiei
street, 18-20, Bucharest, Romania. Tel: (+)40741207988,
Boutsen, Dag, Dean, Kuleuven - Faculty of Architecture, Hoogstraat SI, Ghent, Belgium. Tel:
(+)3222420000, e-mail:
Boye, Anne Mette, Leader professional and academic development, Aarhus School of
Architecture, Noerreport 20, Aarhus C, Denmark. Tel: (+)4589360245,
Braizinha, Joaquim, Erasmus coordinator and project professor, Universidade Iusiada de Lisboa,
Rua da Junqueira, 188-198, Lisboa, Portugal. Tel: (+)351213611500/3647920,
Brandao, Manuel Nicolau Costa, Escola Superior Artistica do Porto,Rua de S.Victor 324, Porto,
Portugal. Tel: (+)351.932506729, e-mail:
Buehler, Frid, Prof, Dipl.-ING BDA DWB, ASAP, Echterstrasse 24, Munchen, Germany.
Tel: 0173 3548294, e-mail:
Buehler, Herbert, Prof, Prof h.c., MSA / Muenster School of Architecture, Leonardo Campus 5,
Munster, Germany. Tel: 0173 3548294, e-mail:
Cabrera I Fausto, Ivan, Academic Advisor, Escola Tecnica Superior D' Arquitectura de la
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Cami de Vera, s/n, Valencia, Spain.
Tel: (+)34963877111, e-mail:
Caglar, Nur, Professor Dr., Head of the Department of Architecture, TOBB-ETU Faculty of Fine
Arts, Design & Architecture, Department of Architecture,Söğütözü cad. No:43
Söğütözü ANKARA, Ankara, Turkiye. Tel: (+)90 532 424 4623,
Calix, Teresa, Assistant Director, Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade do Porto, Via
Panorâmica S/N, Porto, Portugal. Tel: (+)351 963 391 321,
Conceicao, Luis, Professor, Director, ISMAT, Av. Miguel Bombarda, 15, Portimao, Portugal.
Tel: (+)351 - 937485248, e-mail:

List of participants

Couceiro Da Costa, Manuel Jorge, Associate Professor (former president), Faculdade de

Arquitecture / Unversidade Tecnica de Lisboa, R.SA Nogueira / Polo Universitario
/ Alto da Asuda, Lisboa, Portugal. Tel: (+)351919313790,
Cruz, Marcos, Director, Bartlett School of Architecture UCL, London, UK
Cuyvers, Rob, Dean, faculty of Architecture and arts, Hasselt University, Faculty of Architecture
and Arts, Campus Diepenbeek, Agoralaan building E, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Tel: (+)3211249200, e-mail:
Davies, Howard, Senior Adviser, European University Association (EUA), Avenue de l'Yser 24
Ijserlaan, Brussels, Belgium. Tel: (+)44 7780700648,
De Walsche, Johan, Assoc. Professor Architectural Design, Faculty of Design Sciences, University
of Antwerp, Mutsaardstraat 31, Antwerp, Belgium. Tel: (+)32 074546,
Del Bo, Adalberto, Full staff Professor, Scuola di Architettura Civile – Politecnico di Milano, Via
Giovanni Durando 10, Milano, Italy. Tel: (+)393484747755,
Dincyurek, Ozgur, Assoc. Professor Dr - Head of the department of Architecture, Eastern
Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Fanmagusta, North Cyprus.
Tel: (+)905338402130, e-mail:
Dostoglu, Neslihan, Professor Dr., Istanbul Kultur University, Faculty of Architecture, Atakoy
Yerleskesi, Bakirkoy, Istanbul, Turkey. Tel: (+)905323633455,
Dworzak, Hugo, Head of Institute of Architecture and planning, University of Liechtenstein,
Furst Franz Josef strasse, Vaduz, Liechtenstein. Tel: (+)436503422800,
Economides, Demetris, Associate Professor, Frederick University, Department of Architecture,
13, D.Chamatsou Str., Nicosia, Cyprus. Tel: 00 35799208533,
Ellefsen, Karl Otto, President, EAAE,Maridalsveien 29, PO Box 6768 St. Olavs plass, Oslo, Norway.
Tel: (+)4795747436, e-mail:
Fernandes, Maria de Fatima, Architecture course director, ESAP-ESCOLA Superior Artistica do
Porto, Largo De S.Domingos, no 80, Porto, Portugal. Tel: (+)351223392130,
(+)351932506733, e-mail:,
Fjeld, Per Olaf, Professor, Oslo School of Architecture and Design,Pb 6768 St. Olavs Plass., Oslo,
Norway. Tel: 00 479119506
Gabrijelčič, Peter, Dean, Faculty of Architecture, Ljubljana, Zoisova 12, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Tel: (+)38641389090, e-mail:
Gimenez Ribera, Manuel, Assistant Director for Academic Organization and Alumni, Escola
Tecnica Superior D' Arquitectura de la Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Camí
de Vera, s/n, Valencia, Spain. Tel: (+)34963877111, e-mail:
Gomez Morales, Alfonso, Executive President, Innovation Center Catholic University of Chile,
Santiago, Chile. e-mail:
List of participants

Grassi, Marco, Architect, Assistant Coordinator of International Relations, Scuola di Architettura

Civile – Politecnico di Milano, Via Giovanni Durando 10, Milano, Italy.
Tel: (+)390223997140, e-mail:
Grulois, Geoffrey, Professor, Universit Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Place E.Flagey, 19, Bruxelles,
Belgium. Tel: (+)3226455649, e-mail:
Hannes, Els, Administrative Director, faculty of architecture and arts, Hasselt University,
Faculty of Architecture and Arts, Campus Diepenbeek, Agoralaan building E,
Diepenbeek, Belgium. Tel: (+)3211249200, e-mail:
Harder, Ebbe, NAA Coordinator, NAA, Ryesgade 114,, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tel: (+)4540506784, e-mail:
Hariton, Ana Maria, Vice Dean, "Spiru Haret" University, Faculty of Architecture, Str. Ion Ghica,
Nr.13, Sector 3, Bucharest, Romania. Tel: 00 40745768378,
Haugen, Tore Brandsteveit, Professor, Dr.Ing Rector NAA - Nordic Academy of Architecture,
NTNU, Trondheim, Norway. Tel: (+)47-90576660, e-mail:
Horan, James, Professor Emeritus, Dublin School of Architecture, DIT,51-54 Pearse Street Dublin
2, Dublin, Ireland. Tel: (+)353872557765§, e-mail:
Juzwa, Nina, Professor, Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Architecture and Environmental Eng. The Lodz University of technology, ul.
Kaszubska 18/2, Gliwice, Poland. Tel: (+)509630827, e-mail:
Kalogirou, Nikos, Professor, incoming Head of the School, School of Architecture, Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki, University Campus, Thessaloniki, Greece
Katainen, Juhani, Professor Emeritus, TTY Tampere University of Technology, Toolowkatuira 14,
school of architecture, Helsinki, Finland. Tel: (+)358505716705,
Kealy, Loughlin, Emeritus Professor of Architecture, University College Dublin, Richview,
Clonskeagh, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland. Tel: (+)353872389802,
Kjaer, Peter, Professor, Architect, Nordic Academy, Sweden
Korobar, Vlatko, Professor / Head of Doctoral Committee, Faculty of Architecture, University SS.
Cyril and Methodius, Partizanski odredi 24, Skopje, FY Republic of Macedonia.
Tel: (+) 389 70646733, e-mail:
Kuorelahti, Leena, Academic Coordinator, University of Oulu, Department of Architecture, po
box 4100, Oulu, Finland. Tel: (+)358405735351, e-mail:
Landsmark, Ted, President, Boston Architectural College, 320 Newbury street, Boston, USA.
Tel: (+)6175850221, e-mail:
Liapi, Katherine, Associate professor and chair, University of Patras, University Campus,
Rio-Patras, Greece. Tel: 30 6978503598, e-mail:
Light, Russell, Senior University Teacher, School of Architecture, Universty of Sheffield, the arts
tower, western bank, Sheffield, UK. Tel: (+)447712765420,

List of participants

Lu, Pinjing, Professor Dean of School of Architecture, Central Academy of Fine Arts,No.8 Hua Jia
Di Nan St., Chao Yang District, P. R. China, Beijing, P. R. China.
Tel: (+)8613901024148, e-mail:
Mabardi, Jean-François, Professor Emeritus, Université Catholique de Louvain-la-Neuve,
Bâtiment Vinci,   Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. Tel: (+)32496919149,
Malecha, Marvin, Dean, NC State University College of Design,Campus Box 7701, 50 Pullen
Road, Raleigh, NC, USA. Tel: (919)515-8302, e-mail:
Mecca, Saverio, Professor , Department of Architecture, University of Florence, Via della
Mattonaia 14, Florence, Italy. Tel: +39 348 0138955, e-mail: saverio.mecca@
Millar, Norman, Dean, Woodbury University School of Architecture, 7500 Glenoaks Blvd,
Burbank, CA, USA. Tel: (818) 767-0888, e-mail:
Moiceanu, Marian, Dean, University of Architecture and Urban Planning "Ion Mincu", Academiei
street. 18-20, Bucharest, Romania. Tel: 0040.722.383.345,
Monti, Michael, Executive Director, Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, 1735 New
York Ave NW, Washington, DC, USA. Tel: 1.202.785.2324,
Moraitis, Konstantinos, Professor, School of Architecture National Technical University of
Athens, 8A Hadjikosta Street, Athens, Greece. Tel: 0030-210-6434101/
0030-6977-460899, e-mail:
Moras, Antonis, Architect, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, University Campus, Thessaloniki,
Greece. Tel: (+) 306979050551, e-mail:
Musso, Stefano Francesco, Full Professor of Restoration – Director of the Specialization School
in Architectural Heritage and Landscape, Department DSA of Sciences for
Architecture- University of Genoa (Italy), Stradone di Sant’Agostino, 37, Genova,
Italy. Tel: (+)393204999770, e-mail:
Neuckermans, Herman, Emeritus Professor, teaching in 2013-2014, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark
Arenberg,1, Leuven, Belgium. Tel: 00 32 496 575998, e-mail: herman.
Nyka, Lucyna, Professor, Vice-Dean for research, Gdansk Universit of Technology, ul.Narutowicza
11/12, Gdansk, Poland. Tel: (+)48601800986, e-mail:
O'Brien, Sharon, Programme Leader, B.Sc. Architecture, Department of Architecture, Waterford
Institute of Technology, The Granary, The Quay,, Waterford, Ireland.
Tel: 051 302000, e-mail:
Pamfil, Francoise, Assoc. Professor Ph.D. Arch., University of Architecture and Urban Planning
"Ion Mincu",Academiei street. 18-20, Bucharest, Romania.
Tel: 0040.722.246.313, e-mail:
Papakostas, Georgios, Professor, outgoing Head of the School, School of Architecture, Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki, University Campus 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Tel: 00 306937422984, e-mail:

List of participants

Parelius, Gunnar, Faculty Director, Faculty of Architecture and Fine Art, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, Alfred Getz vei 3, Trondheim, Norway.
Tel: +47 91381980, +47 73595096, e-mail:
Phocas, Marios C., Associate Professor, University of Cyprus, Department of Architecture,
Kallipoleos st.75, Nicosia, Cyprus. Tel: +357 22892969,
Pilate, Guy, Professor, Universite Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Place E.Flagey, 19, Bruxelles, Belgium.
Tel: (+)32 2 643 66 63, e-mail:
Popescu, Emil-Barbu, President, University of Architecture an Urban Planning “Ion Mincu”,
Academiei street, 18-20, Bucharest, Romania. Tel: 0040.744.528.955,
Raftopoulos, Spyridon - Sotirios, Professor Emeritus, School of Architecture National Technical
University of Athens, 42 Patission Street, Athens, Greece.
Tel: 210 666 76 49, e-mail:
Rice, Art, Associate Dean, NC State University College of Design, Campus Box 7701, 50 Pullen
Road, Raleigh, NC, USA. Tel: (919)630-1875, e-mail:
Sahin, Murat, Dr. - Assoc. Professor , Faculty of Architecture and Design, Ozyegin University,
Cekmekoy Campus, Nisantepe Mevkii Orman sok.No.13, Istanbul, Turkey.
Tel: (+)90216564 9575, e-mail:
Saraptzian, Catherine, Architect, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, University Campus,
Thessaloniki, Greece. Tel: (+)306978855415, e-mail:
Sargin, Guven Arif, Professor Dr. Head of the Department of Architecture, Middle East Technical
University, METU, Department of Architecture, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey.
Tel: +90 312 2102203, e-mail:
Sastre, Ramon, Professor , ETS Arquitectura Vallès (UPC), Pere Serra, 1-15, Sant Cugat del Vallès,
Spain. Tel: +34 934017880, e-mail:
Sheteling, Fredrik, Dean, Faculty of Architecture and Fine Art, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, A.Getz vei 3, Trondheim, Norway.
Tel: (+)47 91 56 71 87 / 47 59 50 63, e-mail:
Soolep, Juri, Professor , Umea School of Architecture, Ostrastrandgatan 30, Umea, Sweden.
Tel: (+) 46725357058, e-mail:
Spiridonidis, Constantin, Associate Professor, School of Architecture, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, University Campus, Thessaloniki, Greece. Tel: (+)2310 995589,
Stewart, Sally, Deputy Head, Mackintosh School of Architecture, The Glasgow School of Art, 167
Renfrew Street, Glasgow, UK. Tel: (+)441413534663, e-mail:
Toft, Anne Elisabeth, Associate Professor, Architect, PhD, EAAE Project Leader (Editor, EAAE
Review), Aarhus School of Architecture, Noerreport 20, Aarhus, Denmark.
Tel: +45 20683847, e-mail:
Trocka - Leszczynska, Elzbieta, Professor, Dean of the Faculty of Architecture, Wroclaw
Technical University, Ul. B. Prusa 53/55, Wroclaw, Poland. Tel: (+)48603138806,
Trova, Vasso, Associate Professor, School of Architecture, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece.
List of participants

Van Cleempoel, Koenraad, Vice Dean, Faculty of Architecture and Arts, Hasselt University,
Faculty of Architecture and Arts, Campus Diepenbeek, Agoralaan building E,
Diepenbeek, Belgium. Tel: 00 32 11 24 92 00,
Van Duin, Leendert, Professor ir., Delft University of Technology, Julianalaan 134, Delft,
The Netherlands. Tel: 00 31639250942, e-mail:
Vasaros, Zsolt, Dr., Vice-Dean for Education and for International Affairs, Budapest University
of Technology and Economics, Faculty of Architecture, Műegyetem rkp. 3-11.
K.I.23., Budapest, Hungary. Tel: +36 30 9050553,
Verbeke, Johan, Vice Dean Graduate Studies & Research, Kuleuven Faculteit Architectour,
Paleizenstraat 65, Brussels, Belgium. Tel: (+)3222420000
Vitkova, Lubica, Assoc. Professor - Dean, Faculty of Architecture, Slovak University of
Technology, Namestie slobody, 19, Bratislava, Slovakia. Tel: +421/2/57 27 62 15,
Von Meiss, Pierre, Professor Emeritus, EPFL, av. De l’Elysée 31, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Tel: +41-21 616 35 29 and +30 275 40 52 338 or +30 697 90 76 401,
Voyatzaki, Maria, Associate Professor, School of Architecture, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, University Campus, Thessaloniki, Greece. Tel: (+) 2310 995544,
Westrych, Stefan, Professor, Faculty of architecture, Warsaw University, Koszykowa 55, Warsaw,
Poland. Tel: (+)48602260686, e-mail:
Wrona, Stefan, Professor of Architecture, Dean of Faculty, Faculty of Architecture Warsaw
University of Technology, Koszykowa 55, Warsaw, Poland. Tel: (+)48601272746,
Zaleckis, Kestutis, Dr., Kaunas University of Technology, Studentu g. 48, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Tel: +370 61628902, e-mail:
Zavrel, Zdenek, Dean, Faculty of Architecture, CTU in Prague, Thakurova 9, Prague 6,
Czech Republic. Tel: (+)420724614668, e-mail:

MALECHA_sized banner_printready.pdf 1 8/9/13 4:25 PM