I thought the writing was ok but ... do architecture students really believe they're about to transform the world through architecture? If so - why?
I believed so as I enrolled into mathematics, physics and computer science studies, only to be very much disappointed with academia (more than I expected: I did not expect much, but what I've met was sadder than I could envision).
Universities are a perfect place for that, and I hoped for such a stimulating environment. I did end up meeting a teacher or two in later years that met my expectations, but they never stuck around long enough.
And no, the fame is not the driver, imho: I believe all humans would gladly contribute to a challenging problem solution, without requiring ego satisfaction (that can come later :)).
Ok and the newer buildings that actually pay a good architect are impressive that add to the beauty of a city as well.
If you live in a city in the US that is just strip malls it's depressing
I used to live in Berkeley. More recently, I lived in South Park, San Diego. Both places have beautiful homes. I would _love_ to be able to build an American Craftsman style home where I live now (Ireland) but it would most likely be deemed "out of character" with the surroundings and refused planning.
http://s3-media3.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/8VGRjHKhUkzpKVPCdeX9X...
Grand Central station in Los Angeles holds its own too http://kmetros.net/wp-content/uploads/galleries/post-95/full...
(Edit - the above was supposed to refer to Union Station in LA, not GCS in NYC.)
Even among modern architecture, there's something to be said for the aspiration, even if not the reality. There's a beauty in the colorful, low-slung storefronts in Ocean Beach, near San Diego. https://goo.gl/maps/tSaHPChSjLo Of course, I could do without the cars and parking lots. Maybe I'm biased by my history but dingy burger joints and head shops near the beach evoke a sense of relaxation I don't get much of in European cities.
Old brick buildings can be really depressing when they're not kept up. And Europe has plenty of unattractive housing projects (https://goo.gl/maps/KLRXsCrck8s )
Here's a ghastly shopping centre near my home in Dublin http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Phibsboro...
Maybe Europe's advantage was having more time to accumulate buildings, so over time the ugly ones got torn down. Of course, why don't we have more Native American architecture? A nomadic lifestyle combined with materials that generally degrade over centuries? (Notwithstanding that, of course, there may be Native American architects doing interesting work today. I don't know)
But really it's because fewer European cities have been destroyed by car-centric design. Those which have are about as ugly as US suburbia, but I struggle to think of too many examples. Outer neighborhoods of Dublin and Stuttgart come to mind.
Galway is pretty terrible, if you're talking about Ireland, and some of the former industrial heartland of England is pretty bad too (Coventry in particular)
Brick dominates the UK, but the architecture in the continent in general is much more varied and interesting (see Paris, Rome, Prague, Cracow as examples).
So then, as you would in any area, you take that intuition, and you become an expert in it, and you realize that with a sufficient number of small improvements you can enact very large ones in total. Theoretically, it should be possible to build an environment thats somehow absolutely perfect from programming in, and creating let's say a 40% boost in productivity with no significant downsides. Replicate the model repeatedly, and 40% programming productivity boost won't simply improve the programmers; the benefits will cascade, likely leading to improvements across the board.
Alternatively, you have the impact of symbols, in things like a grand church.. A city will with a religious superstructure has a distinctly different feel than a city with minor churches here and there. The culture of the populace is very obviously affected, though perhaps why might not be. It might simply be the fear of god being ever-present, or perhaps the general knowledge that most in the area will naturally be tied to that particular religion, or maybe even the simple fact that its a damned impressive feat of human engineering
Architecture clearly has a significant impact on us, so its not that hard to believe that, were you successful and skilled enough, you could make a very significant impact; However, I'm not of the belief that most architecture is (at least by intention), and I don't think we have much hope for it in the near-future. But the potential is always there.
PS: Also note that I'm a strong believer in Christopher Alexander's perspective on living architecture (don't buy that much into pattern theory specifically, though obviously it works well for CS), and ofc Ram's Form follows Function, and those two ideas are what inform most of my opinion on how architecture should be treated
This is just trading anecdata for anecdata, but neither of them were ever possessed of the notion they'd "transform" anything. The more successful of the two always seemed very passionate about the subject, but otherwise he generally came across as pessimistic about what he'd achieve.