1 Comment

Josh, you obviously don’t know how useful architects are at problem solving. It’s not your fault, architects have never been good at promoting their true value. Architecture school is actually problem-solving school, and it is 5 years of unlearning what traditional school programmed you to do while at the same time learning how to really solve big challenges with no “accepted” way to get to an answer.

I know this wasn’t the assignment at all, but a larger question to me is, how does a group like this come to consensus in 20 minutes? The way I see it is that the only way there could be agreement in this situation is for people to opt themselves out. Only then would the others obviously agree with those decisions.

Everyone has their own self interest, and that, in a group like this, would be very difficult to overcome. Not only does one have to make a case for themselves, but they all have to unanimously agree on who doesn’t make it in? Sounds impossible.

But building consensus is a superpower that architects possess. In the real world, with the architect at the helm of a project, owners, city planners and review boards, the permitting agency, contractors, facility users, administrators, and more all must sign off on the one solution that will be built. And that solution must be adaptable the entire time (because things always change), while someone (the architect) has to keep track of all those moving parts and document them as if their license (and livelihood) depends on it. The building will last 50+ years, so the decisions made are going to have to stand the test of time.

So I’m glad the architect made it inside in your thought experiment. They’ll be an asset whether you know it right now or not. Now as an architect myself, I’d cut the other architect because having two in the same room, we would never agree on anything LOL.

Expand full comment