My son has failed one of his questions for his university course the question is ,

Why should architecture have a theoretical concern at all and I f there is substance as to why, what should be of concern? Offer your insights on the position of XXXXXX in response to is this question, and compare to your own position on the matter.

XXXXXXX: choose from
Etienne-Louis Boulle
Charles Moore
Denise Scott Brown
Juhani palasmaa
Steven Holl

Any help would be appreciated

Well I’m a software architect so hopelessly inadequate for the task at hand. However… I’d start this by studying the work of the above to get the background to the question. They will all have something in common. This will give you the basis of an answer to the above.

Thanks for any help given

If only there was an institution you could go to, and pay someone with the expert knowledge to teach you

What was your son’s answer?

He needs to say “yes” theoretical concerns are important, after all he’s at an academic institution. All the architects named are either well known for theoretical architecture or for being theoretical built architects. He needs to look at all of them and decide which one most appeals (or possibly better – which one doesn’t).
I’m assuming that he’s got a month to answer this, so he needs to get researching now.

Your son needs to learn to produce his own bullshit to order. He’ll need that quality fully honed in his chosen profession.

Theoretical architecture?

Is that like ‘I know it’s raining, but imagine how lovely the roof is…’

Having watched my town get crapped on by architects for the last 40 years I’d suggest a different profession.

Frank Lloyd Wright apparently told a client who complained that there was water coming in when it rained… “that’s how you know it’s a roof”.
I’ve been in practice for nearly 25 years and have never had an opportunity to apply theoretical architecture as such on a project. What I do is aim to take my clients expectations and deliver something that exceeds them. But the knowledge developed (without consequence at School of Architecture) still informs everything I do.
Denise Scott Brown was a very good friend of a former colleague, I could attempt to make contact…

I’ve just looked up what this is about. Now I understand why I struggle to communicate with architects (I’m a structural engineer). What seems to be described as “architectural theory” is actually philosophy, not theory. A theory is “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained” – it should be understandable, independently of the proposer, not opinion.

“Architectural theory” (in my prejudiced opinion) should be about light transmission, thermal efficiency, acoustics, ergonomics, movement of people, etc – testable principles for designing good buildings, not whether the building should look like a butterfly.

So for the OP, the bold answer would be “No” – but then explain why (the question as written only asks for an explanation if the answer is “yes”). For the safe answer, see what architects have posted.

It’s not a question for which there is a right or wrong answer, but the examiner will want evidence that your son has researched and understood the work of whichever architect he chooses, and will then want a cogent and reasoned explanation of his opinion. The answer above falls pretty short on both understanding and reasoning.

I would suggest Scott Brown is probably easiest, there’s been a lot written on her work. Get hold of Learning from Las Vegas by Venturi/Scott Brown, which is probably the most important text, and Las Vegas in the Rearview Mirror by Stierli, which does a pretty good job of contextualising/explaining it.

I’m still struggling with the poncey concept of a “software architect”…
Poncey in the true sense of the word.

Greybeard – you fail to understand that Architecture is an art. It is informed and made real by the application of engineering, but the creation of space and form is clearly an art.
Putting it back to you, I find myself constantly disappointed by engineers who only think in terms of numbers and finite definitions. It’s very rare to work with a structural engineer who thinks of more than the basics. Buro Happold Special Projects being one example of engineers who strive to create.

suburbanreuben – Member
I’m still struggling with the poncey concept of a “software architect”…
Poncey in the true sense of the word

I thought “architect” was a protected title – you can’t call yourself one unless you are registered with the ARB?

Yes it is, however our protectorate the ARB has deemed it acceptable.

Architecture is the reason the London aquatics centre cost £269 million

Architecture may well be an art, but it’s art that people then have to live in, or work in, or walk past. If said architects could stop being cockmonkeys and do a sensible job instead of trying to win prizes, the world would be a much better place.

The NHS National Programme for IT cost £20bn. And didn’t produce a single useful product. Your point is?

I work on national infrastructure projects. I help deliver them and make them better for users than engineers would. I win awards but I only do that because I work with the client with a dedicated team of engineers and the operator. I spend a lot of time making sure that these things are build able and operable and usable.
What is that you do crikey? IT maybe? Tail wagging the dog in my opinion.

My point is as above; stop trying to win prizes and build sensible things.
My local town centre has gone through Victorian/Edwardian shop frontage, then concrete wind tunnel brutality, then soulless modernism, then mini enclosed shopping centres, then refashioning and faux Victoriana.

It’s still shit.

I’m not in IT, thank god.

The NHS National Programme for IT cost £20bn. And didn’t produce a single useful product. Your point is?

I am a massive conspiracy theorist when it comes to IT, there is no way we would let any other industry get away with being that shit?

The thing is, and I apologise for having been to the pub, architecture is really, really important. It provides a structure to the way we live and the way we work and the way we see and interact with the world around us. Because of that importance, because of that central pervasive and vital impact, it shouldn’t end up as a vanity project.

Some architects chase glory instead of doing a good job and the effects last for and influence generations of people.

Short answer: If architects didn’t theorize, we’d still be living in caves! 😆

Architecture is rotten. Driven by trend influenced egomaniacs just seeking to enhance their portfolios. Always has been.

ArchitectureMTB marketing is rotten. Driven by trend influenced egomaniacs just seeking to enhance their portfolios. Always has been.

Greybeard – you fail to understand that Architecture is an art

Apologies, aP. I was being over cynical, having been shocked by some of what I’d just read. Architecture is indeed an art, and I completely agree with and applaud your description of what you do as an Architect. But there’s a big difference between the art of producing something that is functionally and aesthetically suitable for your client and the people using the building, and producing a “work of art” that is impractical and excessively difficult to build and/or maintain, but boosts the ego of the architect. My impression of architectural theory is that it’s too far towards the latter.

But since the OP’s son has to produce something for assessment by academic architects, that may not be an argument they will appreciate.

That’s ok greybeard, cynicism is rife in all walks of life! I’m not immune either.
Stephen Holl is interesting, I was very interested in his work late 80s look at his book “Anchoring”, relatively small scale buildings, quite poetic. In my opinion this didn’t transfer to the large commissions he then moved onto. I was at a lecture he gave in 91 when at MSU, and I think I was about one of only 5 people out of 500 who had any knowledge of his work so I asked him about the loss of poetry in the then upcoming large scale work. It wasn’t received well! There was an awesome party afterwards though 🙂
Back to the OP, get your son to both start to write down what HE thinks and to look at the names given and to begin to make arguments about them.

Big n daft
Look at the pool and realise why architects exist. It’s a very expensive municipal pool which is a celebration not just a pool. Reported budgets for buildings like these are often misleading as they include infrastructure to enable the project. I don’t know if this is the case with the Aquatics centre but just a general point. The velodrome was massively over budget too. Often the original budget is just ridiculously under estimated for whatever reason and it sounds like the architects fault when the a client gets what they want. In the end you could just ride a cheapo halfords special but actually because you want something that will perform brilliantly and look damn cool you spend a lot more money. It’s the same with architecture. Or actually probably anything.

This would make a good study for someone

So, how has he got on?