i do think that this is a thing that happens that the field is just so hard to slither into or maybe so hard to teach i mean think about it how do you teach the field where you predesign something, then develop it with a team of engineers, then you have back and forths with your client/s, then all the financial questions come into play affecting your design like wouldn't you agree? we see all these examples in history of decoration inside a building all these smaller things that aren't the building itself but rather subcomponents of it maybe that just comes back around to the point of "a building is actually a million things in one, hence why they're so hard to analyze and there's a million ways you could go about it" but then what if our education was oriented more around basics? basics in a different sense we wouldn't sacrifice design basics but we would integrate the basic things that actually happen at firms yknow someone would have to roleplay as a client someone would have to play the part of an engineer we'd have to simulate the construction process and the time it takes and itss challenges we'd have to simulate budget and how it can go over or under simulating how the land you build on isn't cheap, having to borrow from a hard money lender other questions and aspects of a distorted impression of what architecture is churches, too, are architecture. I think churches are an instance of somewhat big forms that are usually impressive and easy to access. even more easy to access than skyscrapers; you don't even have to go to downtown to find a church because you probably live close to one, and so you live close to a building that has all these interesting qualities, a building with usually pretty impressive scale (but of course we know and have seen midsize or small churches, more humble designs). but i think my point is still: we shouldn't expect to build churches in the future. [8:44 PM] that's not even acknowledging the gap between how presumably secular a lot of future architects will be, coming from generation z. it's just that churches are old in general. religion continues, sure, but when was the last time you saw a new church get built near you? that's practically part of their identity, too: we think of churches as being old (edited)

VII. WE OBSERVE ARCHITECTURE EXTERNALLY, A SEEMINGLY IMPENETRABLE FIELD: i do think that this is a thing that happens, that the field is just so hard to slither into, or maybe so hard to teach. i mean think about it: how do you teach the field where you predesign something, then develop it with a team of engineers, then you have back and forths with your client/s, then all the financial questions come into play affecting your design ..

like wouldn't you agree? we see all these examples in history of decoration inside a building, all these smaller things that aren't the building itself but rather subcomponents of it. maybe that just comes back around to the point of "a building is actually a million things in one, hence why they're so hard to analyze and there's a million ways you could go about it"

next