See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349680394

The Architect, the Profession, and Society

Chapter · February 2021

DOI: 10.4324/9781003140047-3

CITATIONS READS

2 3,134

1 author:

Ashraf M. Salama
Northumbria University
254 PUBLICATIONS 3,143 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashraf M. Salama on 02 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Chapter 2
THE ARCHITECT, THE PROFESSION,
AND SOCIETY
During the past thirty years, the architectural profession has undergone signif-
icant transformations in response to the change in the environmental needs of so-
ciety resulting from population growth, increased urbanization, and advanced tech-
nology, the emergence of aging societies, and environmental concerns. Several stud-
ies have noted this change.1 In their book “Response to Environment,” Sanoff, Mof-
fet, and Coates (1969) indicated that architecture in the past was concerned with
producing individual works of art on individual sites. The method of design solu-
tion was only intuitive and relied heavily on the experience, judgment, and talent
of the individual designer. Although this approach to architecture has resulted in
some of the most enduring and noteworthy achievements of previous generations,
the profession today faces severe challenges which threaten its traditional role. Re-
cent literature continues to emphasize this view and argues for the need of archi-
tectural practice and education to be more responsive to the continuous transfor-
mation of the profession.2

My objective in this chapter is to present a new view of the role of the architect
in society in order to be able to define the impact of this role on the needs of archi-
tectural education and design studio teaching practices. Therefore, I aim at achiev-
ing two goals: identifying the features, characteristics, and the consequences of dif-
ferent architect role models and recognizing the implications of those role models
in design education.

The chapter is structured in four sections. The first is devoted to discussing the
evolution and transition of the profession. The second discusses how architects view
the future of the profession. The third section is devoted to analyzing the literature
that discusses the architect role models and identifying how the role of the archi-
tect is perceived by different authors from the East to the West. The final section
proposes social and ethical approaches to architecture and their educational impli-
cations in teaching architectural design.

1. The Evolution and Transformation

of the Profession of Architecture
The evolution of the profession has been studied by many architectural histo-
rians and theorists. In recent years, however, several authors have discussed the de-
velopment of the profession from different viewpoints. The evolution of the profes-
sion in this study is discussed within the relation between the architect and the cli-
ent and the impact of the separation between crafts and design on the profession.3
According to these writings, one could outline the evolution of the profession in
the following discussion.

2 THE ARCHITECT, THE PROFESSION, AND SOCIETY 53

Evolutionary Development of the Profession

The built environment has always been made by professionals: but the archi-
tect, as a trained person who works in the design and the realization of buildings,
was a creation of the nineteenth century. Architects of the ancient world were gen-
erally associated with the rich and the powerful, since their services were required
by kings and princes (Kostof, 1986 a).

In Europe, architects also were associated with kings and royal institutes. This
situation was constant, with little change, until the fall of the Roman Empire, when
there emerged a need for the restoration of old Roman cities. This led to the emer-
gence of carpenters, tillers, plumbers, and painters organized in local craft organi-
zations.4 A leading role in the gradual improvement of the profession was played by
the durable buildings constructed in stone and later in brick at that time.

As building technology increased and became more sophisticated, design grew

in importance and complexity. As a result, the “master builders” emerged. Master
builders were trained as masons and stonecutters who had worked a period of time
with an experienced builder. Geometry allowed them to design the complex vault-
ing system, determine the exact shape of a keystone on the ground, and to cut a se-
ries of stones in different sizes, but of the same proportions.5 The power that geom-
etry gave them to perform complex tasks and the apparent fact of the stability of
walls or columns led them to believe that their mathematical knowledge held the
key to structural solidity.

In the Medieval period, the designer did not provide his client with a coordi-
nated set of drawings. Design progressed with the building process itself, in which
the plan, the general idea of what was going on to be built, was first decided upon
(illustrated sometimes by a model of stones); then foundations were made, and build-
ing started (Prak, 1986). The division of responsibilities in the Middle Ages had no
standard system since the master builder who made the design was also the con-
tractor of all the work in stone and brick. The client contracted the carpentry, roof-
ing and plumbing workers separately, where the general contractor was unknown;
only rarely was the master builder responsible for other crafts besides his own.

The period between 1400 and 1800 did not witness any major technical inno-
vations in building. Materials were only marginally improved. This period was
marked by a change in forms. The medieval construction techniques were used to
create Renaissance architecture. According to Prak (1986), the emergence of new
forms led to the emergence of a new type of designer, the artist – architect who had
not had enough knowledge and training in masonry or stone cutting. He shared
with the master builder knowledge of geometry, projective methods, and the abil-
ity to draw. The master builder continued to exist, for it was to him that the artist
architect had to entrust the execution of his drawings. In this concern, it was stat-
ed that Alberti always had technical help in the execution of his own architectur-
al design. Further, there were several examples that represented this type of design-
er. Leonardo DaVinci sketched a number of churches. Raffael designed a church
and a palace. Michael Angelo had a distinguished career as an artist architect.6

The discussion thus far would imply the split between handicrafts and design.
This was associated with the transformation of the building from technical crafts

54 ASHRAF SALAMA — TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY IN ARCHITECTURE AND URBANSIM

to liberal arts, from bricklaying to mathematics, and from architecture as a practi-
cal profession to a learned field of study. This transition had effects on the profes-
sional practice of the time. Drawings became more necessary and gradually replaced
models, but details were still decided upon during the course of construction or left
to the estimation of the contractor, who remained responsible for the stability of
the building.

As architectural design began to rely on forms and theories rather than on prac-
tical experience, the disassociation between architects and the needs of clients in-
creased, particularly with the rising standard of living. In the meantime, architec-
tural design became more of a business with an increasing number of clients who
required new architectural services. As a result, there was a need to establish pro-
fessional organizations, since architects in different parts of the world wanted to
distinguish themselves from builders and contractors.7

Professionalism in architecture has been enhanced by technological achieve-

ments resulting from the Industrial Revolution, in which many new building types
have emerged, such as warehouses, railway stations, hotels, and museums.8 The in-
vention of design and the rendering of this invention in some visual form (sketch
or model) have been regarded by architects as their central activities. The expan-
sion of the field of architecture in the 19th century and its growing complexities in
the 20th century gave rise to a spate of specializations. Currently, there are special-
ty firms for designing schools, housing environments, and health care facilities.
Due to the client/user dissatisfaction with the built environment, concepts like par-
ticipatory design, programming, and post-occupancy evaluation have emerged in
response to the rising demand of architectural services. These concepts are discussed
in the following sections.

Architecture in Transition

In the past few decades, several studies have pointed to the radical changes of
the profession.9 It has become common to observe that essential changes are occur-
ring in the realm of building, architecture, and urbanization. As stated by many
educators,10 those changes will dramatically open new channels for roles architects-
planners could play and perhaps alter the typical role of the architect. In this re-
gard, there have been a considerable number of studies and writings11 with deep
concerns regarding the future of the profession and the nature of services architects
should be able to offer to their clients, users, and the communities within which
they practice. They all emphasize the fact that while architects generally manage
individual buildings well enough, the overall built environment is increasingly mis-
managed. Concomitantly, architects must seek opportunities to transcend the de-
sign of a single building to participate more fully in the design and the develop-
ment of larger environments. The transformations in the profession can be outlined
in the following three categories:

 Emerging New Architectural Services.

 Emerging Complex Types of Activities.

 The Imbalance of Competition between Architecture and Other Professions.

2 THE ARCHITECT, THE PROFESSION, AND SOCIETY 55

 Shifting Professional Attitudes about the Environment and the Emergence of
Sustainable Design Practices.

Emerging New Architectural Services

The need for new architectural services is expanding. This is evident in the
number of firms, architects, recent graduates, architecture students and the schools
of architecture all over the world. Yet, it is argued that although the demand is ex-
panding, it is surprising to observe that many architects believe the opposite, since
not all the firms have benefited from the general growth of the profession.12 It is
noted however that recently in certain regions the status of the profession has
reached its lowest levels due to recession or fluctuating economies.

One of the important issues that have created the need for new architectural
services is the transformation of the social order. In the past, and even until the
1960s, the architect had to work for kings, nobles, and rich people. Now, the atten-
tion of governments and societies is turning to the service of all citizens. This is ev-
ident in the research and practice efforts undertaken by academics, professionals,
and government agencies.13

The growth of the overall demand for services has been accompanied by radi-
cal shifts in the types of architectural services. It is evident that the profession is
being diffused into several new activities and roles that require skills beyond the
capacity of the traditional architect. There emerge specialists in programming and
preparing design briefs, cost analysis and control, designing, components for indus-
trial production, computer application, research, and client relations (CECSA, 1981).
In this regard, one can assert that there are many shifts that threaten traditional
approaches of conceiving the skills required for successful practice. As a result of
these shifts, new types of clients have emerged that seek services that have not pre-
viously been identified as specific skills of the architect. These services range from
maintenance and building diagnostics to modifying an existing building and re-
modeling. Gutman (1988) identifies two types of services that have become the ma-
jor preoccupation of clients: space planning or interior architecture, and façade ar-
chitecture or imageability. This led to a continuous willingness in architecture to
emphasize interior architecture where interior space has replaced designing the
building shell. On the other hand, the tendency towards façade treatment has
emerged from the belief among clients that buildings with a distinctive appearance
can excite public attention. In essence, this led to seeing architecture in specula-
tive commercialized terms.

Emerging Complex Types of Activities

The emergence of complex activities is setting the standards for the skills which
architects must present to clients, and the manner in which they manage, organize,
and present those skills as a means of determining the mode of architectural prac-
tice. The increased scale of building has been accompanied by a greater complexi-
ty in plan and structure. This trend can be inferred from the diversification of ac-
tivities included in building and leading to the emergence of new building types.
Evidently, many mixed developments in the form of individual high rise buildings
or groups of building interventions are being undertaken in most major cities in
the developed and developing worlds.

56 ASHRAF SALAMA — TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY IN ARCHITECTURE AND URBANSIM

 The greater scale and complexity of activities increased the need to involve a wide
range of disciplines in designing. This is evident when looking at they way in which
large firms operate as “Architecture and Engineering Consultancy.” In the meantime,
this implies broader responsibility for the profession of architecture itself.

One of the very early writings concerning the changing role of the architect
was introduced in the beginning of the last century by Clips Sturgis (1914), who
pointed out that architects should have different capabilities to do better architec-
ture. He stated: “Architecture is not an art only. It is also a science and an industry. It re-
quires a diversity of gifts. Architects who emphasize one of these capabilities are incom-
pletely equipped, and render imperfect service as architects. Architecture must be a com-
posite work.” I have made an argument on the attitudes of the majority of architects
which goes along such an early one “Architects still believe that they are eligible to use
the act of building — which buildings are however actually used by others — for personal
exploration and expression. They are creating architecture that makes little reference to
anything, only their creative impulses. Concomitantly, this sense of artistic entitlement
empowered a few of them to design a few brilliant individual buildings. Yet, it has pro-
duced fragmented and illegible urbanism”(Salama, 2007 c:119).14

The Imbalance of Competition between Architecture and Other Professions

According to Sweet (1985), every discipline defines its practice in terms of do-
ing certain things in connection with certain objects. He argues that engineers are
entitled, under the definition of their practice, to do what architects can do. Gut-
man (1988) has identified three more groups that compete with architects, in addi-
tion to engineers. They are:

 Persons who have received training in visual arts, especially interior designers.

 Landscape architects.

 Professionals who do not possess design skills, but do have knowledge and ex-
perience in dealing with other aspects of the building process.

The first group is visual artists, since it includes painters, sculptors and interior
designers. The tradition of visual artists designing buildings goes back at least to Ital-
ian Renaissance cities, where most of the architects of the great buildings were paint-
ers.15 Moreover, it is argued that the recent competition between architects and inte-
rior designers is more intense than ever before. The emergence of this competition
has resulted from the appearance of buildings such as factories and work environ-
ments that are mainly based on organizing and designing partitions and inside walls,
selecting furniture, and specific equipment, while other issues that pertain to the
building shell, contextual aspects and the relationship between the building and its
surroundings may take a back seat when designing these building types.

The second group is landscape architects, since many of the skills of people who
receive training in landscape architecture have overlapping skills with architects.
This fact reflects competition between the two professions. However, they general-
ly respect each others’ domain to a grater extent than do interior designers and ar-
chitects (Gutman, 1988). In projects at the neighborhood or community or urban

2 THE ARCHITECT, THE PROFESSION, AND SOCIETY 57

scale the typical norm is that they collaborate rather than compete. However, the
overlapping of skills sometimes creates situations of imbalanced competition.

The third group of competitors includes contractors, construction managers,

and investors. It is important to realize the sense in which this group challenges ar-
chitects, since they usually hire trained and licensed architects to handle their de-
sign work. It is noted that controlling the design by real estate developers and in-
vestors is always putting architects in situations where they compromise their pro-
fessional values in order to satisfy the interests and concerns of those who hire them.

Recent discussions have emphasized the fact that collaboration already exists
and should continue to exist among different built environment professionals.16 In
this respect, Halina Dunin-Woyseth, (2002, and 2004), introduced two major con-
cepts; these are “Knowledge-Making Professions,” and “Trans-disciplinary Practice
and Research,”

The first is a concept that pertains to making knowledge based on practice. In an

attempt to offer insights into the understanding of the character and nature of “mak-
ing knowledge,” Dunin-Woyseth discusses “making professions” as they relate to art
production, object and product design, architecture, landscape architecture, urban
design, and spatial design. In her analysis, she capitalizes on the earlier work of Gil-
bert Ryle and Herbert Simon. The concept of “making knowledge” is basically based
on Ryle’s distinction of “knowing how” and “knowing that.” She argues that “know-
ing how” is a discipline of its own and has its own specific knowledge base. In this
regard, the “knowing how” concept introduced by Ryle and the science of design par-
adigm introduced by Simon act as a prelude for a disciplinary construction of knowl-
edge that pertain to the “making professions.” Notably, similar arguments have been
emphasized by Rowe (2002).

These insights point out to the fact that four types of knowledge do exist to
form the backbone of “making knowledge.” These are scientific expert knowledge,
folk knowledge, practical skills and knowledge, and tacit knowledge and they all
constitute a type of knowledge resulting from trans-disciplinary practice. However,
one should note that a continuous challenge does exist when attempts are made to
integrate and transform these types into a mode that may acquire the status of a
scientific discipline.

The second concept is trans-disciplinarity, a concept that can be described as a

new form of learning and problem solving involving co-operation among different
parts of society, professionals, and academia in order to meet complex challenges
of society. Trans-disciplinary research and practice starts from tangible, real-world
problems. Solutions are devised in collaboration with multiple stakeholders includ-
ing professionals from different disciplinary backgrounds. Thus, trans-disciplinar-
ity is about transgressing boundaries of disciplines.

The preceding two concepts may seem contradicting with the notion of the im-
balanced competition between architecture and other professions. However, they
provide a basis for understanding design and built environment professions in the
sense that they share skills, values, and approaches that are amenable to collabora-
tion rather than competition.

58 ASHRAF SALAMA — TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY IN ARCHITECTURE AND URBANSIM

Shifting Professional Attitudes about the Environment and the Emergence of
Sustainable Design Practices

In his manuscript, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn (1970) bases his
theory of a scientific revolution on paradigms that relate to rules and some neces-
sary specifications of common ground in the corresponding area. Along the same
theory, De-Bono (1991) argues that a paradigm changes in the way we think and
approach problems. Based on the concept of paradigms, three shifts or shifting at-
titudes about the environment can be identified (Salama, 1999, 2002, 2005 a). These
paradigm shifts can be outlined in the following discussion.

A. Things versus Relations between Things

According to Capra et al. (1992), the reductionism of the old paradigm was re-
flected in the belief that the dynamics of the whole could be understood from the
properties of the parts. But, in the new paradigm, the properties of the parts can be
understood only from the dynamics of the whole. John Turner affirms this view when
he argues that there are no parts at all, what we call a part is a pattern in an insepa-
rable web of relationships. Tracing back the literature that has been developed in the
sixties, one can find that this view has been introduced by Christopher Alexander
(1966) who identified three basic abilities for investigating and understanding the
physical environment. These are: a) the holistic behavior of the phenomenon which
we are focusing on, b) the parts within the thing and the interaction among those
parts which causes the holistic behavior we have defined, and c) the way in which
this interaction among these parts causes the holistic behavior defined.

Taking housing as an example, this paradigm shift can be clearer. In the old
paradigm, the value of housing is assumed to be in the quantifiable attributes of
dwellings, sometimes including their immediate environments. In the new para-
digm, housing values lie in the relationships between the process, the product, the
users, and the social and environmental contexts. In the old paradigm, housing has
been conceived in terms of what it is, rather than what it does for local populations
and the way in which people interact with built and natural environments. In this
respect, one can assert that by focusing on relationships the new paradigm converts
the insoluble problems into encouragingly practical tasks and more promising ends.

B. Economy and Ecology, Isolation versus Integration:

In the new paradigm, the concept of sustainability has emerged as a reaction

to environmental depletion and degradation. Many theorists are voicing the need
to harmonize economy and ecology. The old paradigm has been characterized by
three basic assumptions: man is more valuable than nature; man has the right to
subdue and conquer nature, and has no responsibility for nature. On the other hand,
in the new paradigm the concept of sustainable development is conceived to value
the environment alongside economic development, and to value social equity along-
side material growth.

In the new paradigm, the same technology that has been employed to conquer
and subdue nature needs to be employed for the benefits of nature and, in turn, for
the long-term benefit of the human race. It is believed that this characteristic of the
new paradigm creates the need for mature and competent professionals. Thus, the

2 THE ARCHITECT, THE PROFESSION, AND SOCIETY 59

new sustainable society will need to identify non-material means for non-material
needs. In response, professional development will need to emphasize the practice
of trans-disciplinarity and the practice of non-technical and lifelong learning skills.

C. Techno-development versus Eco-development:

The difference between techno-development and eco-development is the dif-

ference between a mechanical contrivance or tool and a living organism. Technol-
ogy does not make built environments; people make them. Techno-development
is based on the modernist illusion of technological determinism. It has been seen
by many as an assault on nature. Eco-development is a package of concepts, ethics,
and programs that provides designers and planners a criterion of social and ecolog-
ical rationality that are different from the market logic (Sachs, 1987). It is rooted in
the real need to fit human settlements within the patterns of nature. Politically,
eco-development is decentralized and democratic. Socially and culturally, it reflects
the diverse reality of human affairs and the tapestry of life, which makes every por-
tion of the built environment work well. Economically, it adopts the premise that
economy and ecology are both essentially to do with the flow of energy and mate-
rials through a system and that value is a social construct.

Relating these paradigm shifts to the way in which the practice of architecture is
being transformed should be highlighted. Architects and built environment profes-
sionals did not intend to create problems such as sick buildings, auto-oriented com-
munities, or global warming. The standards they are using evolved over time based
on many factors, including functional measures, basic health and safety aspects, du-
rability, ease of maintenance, efficiency and economy. Today’s typical buildings are
generally successful in achieving these shared goals. However, environmental sensi-
tivity has not been a consideration until the last few years. With notable exceptions,
architects and builders have become most focused on client’s immediate priorities
and on requirements established by local building codes or municipal regulations at
the expense of environmental issues.

Two entrenched major aspects appear to characterize conventional design think-

ing. The first is “emphasizing short term economic goals” where architects and engi-
neers typically try to reduce initial costs through value engineering, often paying
less attention to optimizing long term operations. The second aspect is “compart-
mentalization” where project team members are always focusing on a narrow area
of responsibility and work toward goals that only encompass actions within their
discipline (Kulman and Schurke, 2001).

While all the disciplines in conventional design practices are coordinated with
each other and respond to the requirements of the other disciplines, there is little ef-
fort toward integrating problem solving into larger integrated goals. For example, en-
velope materials, lighting design, and HVAC equipment must each meet certain min-
imum requirements for total building energy consumption. However, typically, sel-
dom are these pieces designed as a whole to optimize energy use.

If they can begin to shift their approach to design, architects can help lessen or
eliminate some of the unintended environmental and societal problems. This would
involve changes in how they think about design and would encompass two major
characteristics of sustainable design: “Interdependence” and “Increased Responsibility.”

60 ASHRAF SALAMA — TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY IN ARCHITECTURE AND URBANSIM

On the one hand, “interdependence” involves thinking holistically; in other words,
seeing the project’s components and its context as interdependent systems (Kul-
man and Schurke, 2001). With this view, the separate disciplines would work to-
gether to understand the relationship of their endeavours to the success of the en-
tire project. They would attempt at understanding how the project’s success is de-
pendent upon the success of larger economic, social, and ecological systems. On
the other hand, “increased responsibility” means going beyond the immediate cli-
ent concerns and the short term economic goals to include community and envi-
ronmental concerns. When designing to achieve sustainability, an architect is ex-
pected to look for solutions that solve problems at once so that all parties benefit.
It is noted that a shift toward this type of thinking and practicing on the basis of
it is beginning to exist in some architectural firms.

Within the context of this shift in thinking, one should note that the term sus-
tainable design is chosen over sustainable architecture since design can be both a
verb (connoting a process), and a noun (connoting a result or product), and because
design better conveys the interdisciplinary involvement needed to satisfy sustain-
ability goals. In this respect, sustainable design as a process is an informed action
that aims at improving the contribution of a project to natural, social, and econom-
ic prosperity throughout its life cycle. As a result, it means that the ongoing opera-
tion of a building has the same type of contribution to the natural and social worlds.

The preceding discussion manifests that architecture and its practice is in a con-
tinuous process of transformation which is exemplified by the emergence of new ar-
chitectural services, the emergence of complex types of activities and mixed use de-
velopments, the imbalance of competition between architecture and other professions,
and the emergence of sustainable and trans-disciplinary design practices. These as-
pects are also in a continuous process of change and, in turn, this is changing the role
of the architect and the nature of professional tasks and services. Changes and trans-
formations in the profession lead concomitantly to a discussion and a critical analy-
sis on how architects view the future of the profession and how they perceive their
role and responsibility towards society.

2. The Architects’ View of the Profession, have they

changed since the 1980s?
In this section, the focus is on how the architects view architecture: what they
perceive the major advantages of being architects to be, how they view their own
participation in architecture, and how they envision the relationship between them-
selves and the social and professional worlds. The section reviews two important
studies conducted in the 1980s, one conducted by Lee Bolman (1981) entitled “Ed-
ucation and Practice in Architecture”, and the other conducted by Dana Cuff (1989),
entitled “Through the Looking Glass”. This is coupled with some reflections on the
current discourse on architecture and the attitudes of star architects based on the
work of Nikos Salingaros (2007), entitled “Anti-Architecture and Deconstruction.”

2 THE ARCHITECT, THE PROFESSION, AND SOCIETY 61

ture and the society: first, to involve people in the decision making process and in-
crease their trust and confidence in the organization, and second, to provide peo-
ple with a voice in design and decision making in order to improve plans, decisions,
and the service delivery system in general.

In conclusion, one could state that the previous three concepts will shape the
role of the architect in the near future, since future architects will have to adopt re-
sponsive approaches in order to advocate social and ethical concerns. In essence,
they are starting to shape many architectural practices worldwide. Programming
helps articulate the criteria and goals to which the architect should respond in de-
sign. Post-occupancy evaluation gives a control over the evolution and design of
buildings. Finally, users participation helps improve design decisions, since people’s
experience will be integrated with the designer’s values in a collaborative design
process. The three concepts should be regarded as integral parts within the educa-
tional objectives of the design studio.

5. Implications on Transformative Pedagogy

in Architecture and Urbanism
It appears that we are facing a major change in our outlook on the world, and
that we are living in a time of confusion, a time in which no one theory will have
the upper hand in solving the contemporary needs of society in the field of architec-
ture and urbanization (Rockeach, 1973). It also appears that we are living in an age
where no one discipline can have strong claims any more over its own direction, con-
cerns, and areas of knowledge in isolation from what is happening in other disci-
plines. This requires redefining architecture to be, ultimately, a social act and a trans-
disciplinary field of study and practice. In this respect, architecture should be regard-
ed as a socially responsible axiological art (Burgess, 1983). Moreover, it is crucial for
current theory and practice of architectural and urban education to question the fun-
damental values that are embodied in the design process which will lead, consequent-
ly, to exposing architecture students to alternative social roles.

The different architect role models that are associated with the social and ethi-
cal commitment towards contemporary societies should be emphasized in the stu-
dio. By dividing the architectural studio into three components, the content, the pro-
cess, and the teaching style, one can find that there is no exposure in any of these
components to the different architect role models other than the egoist role, and in
some cases, the pragmatist role. According to Burgess (1983), the egoist role model is
implicitly legitimized, while other role models are forgotten in the rarefied atmo-
sphere of the architectural studio. Along the same line of thought, Garrott (1983) ar-
gues that the contemporary traditional design studio presents only one model for the
student, the egoist role model. This role is based on personal values, with a minimal
respect for the values of others. Consequently, this reinforces the credibility of this
role among architecture students and practitioners. In this concern, Jakobson (1970)
argues that three basic skills are needed to have better understanding of society. They
are the art of thought, the art of judgment, and the art of conjecture. The teaching
of these three arts should, therefore, become the core of every design curriculum in
architecture. In response to the dominance of the egoist role model, Ledewitz (1983)
has identified four intentions, in terms of learning objectives that should be employed
in the studio; these can be outlined as follows:

76 ASHRAF SALAMA — TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY IN ARCHITECTURE AND URBANSIM

 Students should understand that values play an important role in design. They
should realize that differences among values are related to differences among
design solutions.

 Students should see that their values may be different from those of the people
for whom they design.

 Students should be able to distinguish design actions based on personal values

from those based on the values of others.

 Students should be able to talk about their own values more clearly.

Relating the preceding learning objectives to a recent eloquent argument on ar-

chitectural education made by Salingaros and Masden (2008), “Students seeking to
become architects must first be made aware of the negative effects of current architectural
education, juxtaposing this awareness with the values of real engagement with the world.
For example, natural materials work through construction and patterns of assembly to es-
tablish our sense of wellbeing in the places we live. Why, then, should students learn to
copy an international form of architecture that has been shown to be indifferent, even ad-
versarial, towards human beings and non-Western cultures? Academic institutions should
begin to support a local and immediate view of design. They should provide students with
the necessary and effective tools to access architectural design in terms of its direct human
qualities” (Salingaros and Masden, 2008: 132), one could see how such an argument
discerns the ills of architectural education and the architect roles it emphasizes
while at the same time offer a panacea for those ills.

Another response has emerged in the main stream which is exemplified by the
community/university learning lab. This concept has emerged to provide a balanced
awareness, pertaining to the constraints and complexities within the architectural
design studio. This concept emerged originally in the late 1960s. Later, many educa-
tors adopted and employed it. It presumes that exposing architectural students to real
studio design problems would incorporate various members of the actual design de-
velopment team into the architectural design studio in a participatory manner.26

The striking observation in which this approach works is that its fundamental
concept of education in architecture is that is should be based upon a comprehen-
sive understanding of the values, needs, and desires of all members of the design
team. In this realm, the design team consists of all the individuals who would be
directly influenced by the produced design solution and the individuals who have
an influence upon the implementation of the design project.

The combination of architecture students with community members, together

with the assistants and the instructor, or the director, of the studio, creates an op-
portunity for a comprehensive learning situation. In the meantime, this provides
interdisciplinary information and a wide range of values. By applying this approach,
students will have a greater opportunity for understanding the results of their de-
sign actions and the anticipation of those in subsequent design solutions. Conse-
quently, students can develop a clearer understanding of their roles, values, and ex-
pectations as they belong to the profession of architecture. On the value of this ap-
proach, it is important to refer to concept of the “everyday environment” intro-
duced recently by Habraken. He argues that “teaching architectural design without

2 THE ARCHITECT, THE PROFESSION, AND SOCIETY 77

teaching how everyday environment works is like teaching medical students the art of heal-
ing without telling them how the human body functions. You would not trust a medical
doctor who does not know the human body. Knowledge of everyday environment must le-
gitimize our profession” (Habraken, 2006: 18).

In conclusion, the different architect role models should be emphasized equal-

ly in the teaching of architectural design. Concepts such as programming, post-oc-
cupancy evaluation, and user participation should be regarded as integral parts of
the teaching process in the design studio. In this domain, students will have the
opportunity to be researchers and designers, since they can approach design prob-
lems by analytically evaluating similar projects that have been done in the past.
They can work in a collaborative process with clients and users to identify their val-
ues, needs, and problem constraints as well. The results of this research are essen-
tial to be used as a database for developing design solutions.

The previous argument does not mean that this is the only approach to trans-
formative pedagogy in architecture and urbanism. Certainly, there are several mod-
els hat can be used to teach architectural design which place emphasis on the pro-
cess and students’ faculties. This would imply that the concepts of programming,
post-occupancy, evaluation, and user participation should be emphasized in one
way or another in the design studio in order to ensure that the enduring values of
architecture are not forgotten and to declare to the public what architects do, and
how and why they do it. The intention is to make the practice of architecture more
purposeful, predictive, and effective in the society in which we live.

1 See: Doxiades, 1963; Sanoff, Moffet, and Coates, 1969; Sanoff, 1975, Prak, 1986; Gutman, 1988; and
Cuff, 1991.
2 See: Salama, O’Reilly, and Noschis, 2002; Habraken, 2006; Habraken, 2007; and Salama, 2008.
3 See: Jenkins, 1961; Harvey, 1972; MacDonald, 1977; Boyle, 1977; Ettlinger, 1986; and Kostof, 1986.
4 See: Salzman, 1952; and Prak, 1986.
5 See: Harvey, 1972; and Awad, 2002.
6 See: Rekewert, 1955-.
7 The first architects’ club in England was established in 1791 – The German architects’ club was found-
ed in Berlin 1799 – Royal Institute of British Architects, 1834 – Society of French Architects, 1840 – The
American Institute of Architects, 1857.
8 See: Prak, 1986.
9 See: Doxiades, 1963; Bolman, 1981; Balfour, 1981 & 1987; and Gutman, 1988.
10 A Challenge Report to Schools of Architecture, in a study sponsored by the Consortium of East Coast
Schools of Architecture, 1981.
11 See AIA Report on Creating Human Environments, 1963; Policy Studies Institute in the United King-
dom, 2004 http://www.psi.org.uk/news/pressrelease.asp?news_item_id=144; Habraken, 2005; 2006,
2007; and AIA Report on Green Communities-Green Economy, 2008- http://www.aia.org/
rebuildandrenew
12 See: Gutman, 1988.
13 See for example Boyer and Mitgang, 1996; Sanoff, 2003; the manuscripts and monographs of the Aga
Khan Award for Architecture which place emphasis on the role of architecture in responding to com-
munity needs and cultural norms, http://www.archnet.org/library/documents/collection.
jsp?collection_id=85
14 See: AIA Proceedings of the 48th. Annual Conference, December, 1914; AIA Report on Creating Human
Environments, 1963; Boyer and Mitgang, 1996; Salama, 2007 c; Salingaros, 2007.

78 ASHRAF SALAMA — TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY IN ARCHITECTURE AND URBANSIM

15 Goldwaite, 1980; Prak, 1986; and Gutman, 1988.
16 See: Dunin-Woyseth, 2002; and Dunin-Woyseth and Nielsen, 2004.
17 See: Salama, A. M. (2007). Nikos A. Salingaros: A New Vitruvius for 21st. Century Architecture and Ur-
banism. Archnet-IJAR-International Journal of Architectural Research, Volume 1, Issue 2, Archnet @ MIT
School of Architecture and Planning, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States, PP. 114-131.
18 The study is not a comparative analysis, since the comparison is based on adopting specific criteria for
selecting the authors and their articles. The discussion of the architect role models is conducted with-
in the available literature that has been developed to address these concerns.
19 See: Burgess, Mayo, Littman, 1981; Burgess, 1981 & 1983; Garrott, 1981 & 1983; Akin, 1983; and Lede-
witz, 1983.
20 The term popular is used by Jakobson as an antonym to elitist.
21 See: Baghdadi, 1985; Akbar, 1986; Serageldin, 1986; Touchterman, 1986, and Helmy, 1991.
22 See: Salama, A. M. (2007). Mediterranean Visual Messages: The Conundrum of Identity, ISMS, and
Meaning in Contemporary Egyptian Architecture. Archnet-IJAR-International Journal of Architectural
Research, Volume 1, Issue 1, Archnet @ MIT School of Architecture and Planning, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, United States, PP.86-114.
23 Over the past three decades architectural programming (the development and preparation of project
briefs) has been discussed heavily in the literature. See Sanoff, 1977 and 1992; Preiser, 1978 and 1985;
and Hershberger, 1985 and 1999. In recent years, it has become recognized as an important activity
— in some cases named as “pre-design studies” and in others “advance planning,” See: Salama, A. M
and Adams, W. G. (2004). Programming for Sustainable Building Design: Addressing Sustainability in
a Project Delivery Process, Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 6, Issues 3/4 - Special Issue on IAPS
18th Conference, Timisoara, Romania, PP. 178-187.
24 On the literature of post occupancy evaluation-POE, see Marcus, 1982; Marmot, 1982; Zimiring et. al,
1982; Marcus and Sarkissian, 1986; Preiser, 1978 & 1988; Sanoff, 1992; Zaki and Hadi, 1993; Behloul,
1993, and many others. In this context, it is important to refer to the recent article: Preiser, W.F.E. and
Nasar, J. L. (2008). Assessing Building Performance: Its Evolution from Post Occupancy Evaluation. Arch-
net-IJAR-International Journal of Architectural Research, Volume 2, Issue 1, Archnet @ MIT School of
Architecture and Planning, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States, PP.84-99.
25 Writings on participation in design started in the late 1960s and continue to the present while repre-
senting a new realm of design practice. See Cross, 1972 and 1990; Habraken, 1986; Sanoff, 1978, 1988
and1992; Francis, 1987; Gibson, 1986; and Hardie, 1988. Three notable publications on participatory
design and its role in the community should be referred to: See. Sanoff, 2003-Three Decades of De-
sign and Community; Jones, Petrescu, and Till, 2005-Architecture and Participation; and Stohr and Sin-
clair, 2006-Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises.
26 This approach has been developed by Henry Sanoff in 1969 at the School of Design, North Carolina
State University. Tomas Dutton has developed the same approach in 1987 at Miami University, Ohio.
Ames Griffin used the same concept at the University of Nebraska. The same approach has been em-
ployed by Jay Garrott at Carnegie Mellon University, and later by Drury College. This approach is de-
scribed and analyzed in chapter 4. Recently, this model has gained a sustained momentum in many
schools of architecture worldwide.

2 THE ARCHITECT, THE PROFESSION, AND SOCIETY 79

 Stamp, A. E. (1994). Jungian epistemological balance: A framework for conceptualizing architectural education.
Journal of Architectural Education, 48(2). 105-112.
Stohr, K. and Sinclair, C. (Eds.) (2006). Design like you give a damn: Architectural responses to humanitarian cri-
ses. New York, NY: Metropolis Books.
Straus, D., & Doyle, M. (1978). The architect as a facilitator: A new role. Journal of Architectural Education, 31(4),
13-15.
Sturgis, C. (1914). Proceedings of 48th Annual Convention of the American Institute of Architects: Opening Address.
Washington, DC: American Institute of Architects.
Sutton, S. (1984). Should behavioral studies be integrated into the design studio. Architectural Record, July,
43-48.
Sweet, J. (1985). Legal aspects of architecture: Engineering and construction process. Minneapolis, MN: West Pub-
lishing Co.
Symes, M. (1985). Urban development and the education of designers. Journal of Architectural and Planning Re-
search, 2(2), 23-38.
Symes, M. (1989). Research on the human problems of architectural education. Journal of Architectural and Plan-
ning Research, 6(3).
Symes, M., Eley, J., and Seidel, A. (1995). Architects and their practices: A changing profession. Oxford, UK:
Butterworth.
Szambien, W. (1982). Durand and the continuity of tradition. In R. Middleton (Ed.), The Beaux-Arts and the Nine-
teenth-Century French Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Teymur, N. (1993). Architectural education: Issus in educational policies and practice. London, UK: Question Press.
Touchterman, W. (1986). Training architects: Some comments. In A. Evin (Ed.), Architectural Education in the Is-
lamic World (174-178). Geneva, Switzerland: The Aga Khan Trust for Culture.
Ward, A. (1987). Design archetypes from group processes. Journal of Design Studies, 8(3), 157-169.
Watkins, J. M., & Mohr, B. J. (2001). Appreciative inquiry: Change at the speed of imagination. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass Publishers.
Watson, D. (1993). Towards a new paradigm in education. Proceedings of Conference on Knowledge-Based Archi-
tectural Education: Reconfiguring the Studio: (13-14). San Antonio, TX: Architectural Research Centers
Consortium.
Weatherhead, A. C. (1941). The history of collegiate education in architecture in United States. Doctoral disserta-
tion, Columbia University, 1941.
White, E. T. (1991). Teaching architectural programming. Tucson, Arizona: Architectural Media Ltd.
White, T. H. (1996). Working in interesting times: Employee morale and business success in the information age.
Vital Speeches of the Day, XLII(15).
Whitford, F. (1984). Bauhaus. London: Thames and Hudson.
Whitford, F. (1992). The Bauhaus: Masters and students by themselves. London: Cornan Octopus.
Williams, L. (1983). Teaching for the two sided mind. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Wineman, J., Barnes, R., & Zimring, C. (1986). Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of Environmental De-
sign Research Association: The Costs of Not Knowing. Atlanta, GA: EDRA.
Wingler, H. M. (1980). Bauhaus. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wolfe, T. (1981). From Bauhaus to our house. Toronto: McGraw Hill Ryerson Ltd.
Yee, S., Mitchell, W., & Yamagucki, S. (1998). A case study of the design studio of the future. Proceedings of the 1st
International Workshop of Co-Built ’98: Integrating Information, Organization, and Architecture: (80-93).
Berlin, Germany: Springer Publishers.
Zaky, S., & Abdel-Hadi, A. (1993). Evaluation report on the 10th of Ramadan City. Cairo, Egypt: The National Cen-
ter for Social and Criminological Research.
Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquiry by design. Monterey, CA: Brooks and Cole.
Zimiring, C., Wineman, J., & Reizenstein, J. (1982). Knowledge for design: POE, the programming, and design pro-
cess: The gap bridged. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research As-
sociation. College Park, Maryland: EDRA.
Zube, E. (1981). Environmental evaluation: Perception and public policy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc.

208

View publication stats