Old
foggies!!!??? - I am beginning to really feel my age.

 

OK
lets stop this (I agree rather voluminous) discourse and listen to what the
young uns have to say.  I would love to have that as a starting
point.

 

If the
current trends bother you what is the first step you would like to
take?


-----Original Message-----
From:
[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of leon
morenas
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:49 PM
To:
[email protected]
Subject: RE: [in-enaction] website:
Council of Architecture



I am getting a little lost with so much discourse happening.. Was ther a
recent rumour/ titbit about the AICTE removing the accreditation powers of the
CoA.


Besides I did get the stats from one mail that the CoA has young architects
to the tune of 50%


I wonder if this is relevant but with the present state of affairs and the
Gats happening.. where do this sizable chunk stand? I am also inclined to
belive that SPA and CEPT are on the verge of closure? I believe that the age
of the Sweat shops is at hand because the present trend shows most young
professionals end up cheap labour in the offices of the biggies?


Why are we talking about the CoA here.. we have the MCD chief asking for
USAid to do out bnuilding Bylaws and guidelines for us and the CoA does not
even whimper?


I and the opinion of a few of the young uns believe that like the old
foggies need to go and digress on some one else's turf and not allow this rot
to infiltrate the profession further (if we do have one stil left)


But to harp on Professionals.. Look at the ITPI and their
representatives... we have the director of the SPA heading it who has a CBI
enquiry on him and the institution.. why should he be asked to represent.


I believe the older generation has to give us an answer for this rot that
has set in.. the institutions like CoA, ITPI, SPA, HUDCO, DDA, HSMI...


So pardon my scepticism when I read the voluminous dialogue.. anbd am not
convinced...


Young Professional


 


>From: "Prem Chandavarkar"


>Reply-To: "Concerned about habitat and the
professions."
>To: "Concerned about habitat and the
professions."
>Subject: RE: [in-enaction] website: Council of Architecture
>Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:55:03 +0530
>
>Anand,
>To respond to a few key points:
>
> >
> > one, demand significant amandments in the CoA and IIA
structures
> > another,
>
>Do you really want to take this on?
>
> > demand newer types of institutions and legislative
frameworks,
> > which is quite stimulating.
> >
>
>Not clear on what you mean here - need more specific info.
>
>
> >
> > I am thinking about masters level courses and PhD
programmes in
> > Architectural Education (M.Ed. in Architecture) and
Design Informatics
> > (M.Tech Architecture), will gladly confuse research with
education (or
> > education-as-research) and theory and design.
> >
>
>These are all spaces which require some degree of formalisation
in terms of
>official structures - university recognition etc. Is there not
a potential
>in informal spaces which do not require formalisation and only
seek to churn
>up ideas.
>
> >
> > I am arguing the "alternative spaces" already exist (see
above, the
> > deviations between architectural practice as observed and
the CoA/IIA
> > nomenclatures), one just needs to occupy them and then
wait for challenges
> > from the institutional stakeholders (who tend to
negatively defend their
> > territories)
> >
>I agree - what specific suggestions do you have here.
>
> >
> > immediately contiguous, how do you imagine the
professionals articulating
> > their stakes in architectural education?
architecture-teaching isn't all
> > that it could be, it seems to me, because the employers
aren't demanding
> > much.
> >
>I often get into arguments on this. As an architect who has
academic
>interests and is also a partner in a 45 person practice I feel
I am in a
>position to evaluate the interests of both sides. I have long
argued
>against the vocationalisation of education with an overwhelming
focus on
>skill development. The argument made is that students have to
be usable by
>practices. As a practising architect, I feel it is just the
opposite. I
>can cover to a certain extent for gaps in skills, but it is
very difficult
>for me to cover for gaps in the ability to think independently,
critically
>and with rigour. Therefore, my ability to use my staff to
leverage my own
>time is seriously limited. However I find that very few
practicing
>architects are willing to take such a view, and cling firmly to
the view
>that vocationalising education is the 'practical' thing to do.
The key is
>how you seek to differentiate yourself. If you wish to
differentiate
>yourself in terms of design quality then you need a
well-educated staff.
>But most Indian architects only attempt differentiation in
terms of personal
>(and political) negotiation, price, and to a certain (but
lesser) extent in
>terms of efficiency. Therefore, they only perceive a need for
staff with
>easily definable vocational skills. To me this is a dangerous
attitude for
>it does not work towards true differentiation and pushes
architectural
>practice towards a commodity status. I find it difficult to
push people out
>of this blinkered attitude - so I do not see much change in
education coming
>from employers. I feel that a greater opportunity is to create
alternative
>spaces for students - particularly those who are in the first
half of the
>programme (as those in fourth and final year often begin to
acquire the
>blinkers of convention).
>
>_______________________________________________
>in-enaction mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/in-enaction



MSN Hotmail now on your Mobile phone. Click here.