Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

This site uses cookies. By using our services, you agree to our cookie use.
Learn more here.

Your views: Alison Brooks responds to Patrik Schumacher

Silver Medal Winning Robots of Brixton

President Medals 2011 judge rejects Zaha Hadid Architects director’s analysis of British architectural education

I agree with Patrik Schumacher’s piece that for many years architecture schools have been generating projects based on fictional narratives, with a predominance of what I describe as industrial romanticism. There are very few thesis projects offered by architecture schools that respond to the pragmatic challenges to which architects respond in practice − basic questions of inhabitation, enclosure, materiality, durability, budget, client and environmental cost.

Architectural education has for many years relied on supra-fictional scenarios to allow students to develop their creative imaginations, to take us places we’ve never been before. It’s as if we allow one last bout of wishful thinking before The Fall. However, as a juror for the final stage of the selection process, I saw something more in this year’s medallists’ projects − something that made a connection between the fictional and the real, that conveyed a conviction that architects can, through their work, communicate the need for social change for which architecture is one of many agents.

Particularly in the case of Robots of Brixton, this was polemical work − one could argue in the tradition of Rem’s (collective) AA thesis Exodus − but from a completely different and contemporaneous perspective. Initially sceptical, we jurors found the narratives of the winning projects had their basis in extraordinary quantities of research, thick books of investigative material, design and processes unfortunately not on view at the RIBA exhibition.

The best projects convincingly distilled this research along with the author’s observations, objective and subjective analysis − sometimes extending to compassion, empathy, satire, humour. They were clearly social, environmental and political allegories as much as architectural projects. But is this not also a valid position for an architectural student at thesis level?

I agree that ‘critical architecture’ doesn’t substitute for the political process, but it contributes to it through a discourse that emanates beyond the confines of the architectural. When the thesis takes a further leap into animation, character and screenplay, as in the Silver medallists’ scheme (pictured, left), it moves outside the limitations of architectural representation as we know it.

The ‘designed’ environment is only part of the story of architecture with this medium. The way the environment is used or disused is more relevant. The architectural imagination and the project is inhabited by personalities and characters with whom we are encouraged to empathise, rather than abstracted populations and processes to which the profession is more accustomed.

The portfolios of the students showed an extraordinary level of skill in visual communication and digital tools, used to describe not only architectural qualities and atmospheres, but components and strategies. I came to the conclusion that this 21st-century student work is perhaps more tolerant and humane, rejecting our latent Modernist expectations of the architectural project, the heroically transformative partis. It is accepting of dirt and time; it’s not obsessed with newness. Maybe this is the spirit of the age − they are the first generation in 500 years that will not achieve the standard of living of their forbears (us).

Alison Brooks, Alison Brooks Architects, London

Readers' comments (1)

  • That's all very well Ms Brooks, but this approach to architectural representation overlaps into film making. I think that this approach would be fine for a bronze medal entry (end of part 1) but silver medal level (part2) is where students are supposed to begin to approach technical competence. I think that it's obvious that the neglect of technical competence by the schools is what has led to the accelerating reduction of the architects status in the UK. Thus the profession, society and students are all being failed by 'the schools'. Why? Because of the way research points trump technical/vocational ones at HE establishments? This is what gives us the problematic pedagogical structure that is now common in UK schools of architecture. So it's about the self serving nature of schools rather contributing politically to professional discourse, as Schumacher has rightly argued that the architect is not uniquely mandated to contribute to political discourse. What the architect IS uniquely mandated to do is enhance thr experience of living in the built environment by designing buildings for society. If we don't do this effectively, society will find other ways to get this job done, indeed it has already found other ways.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.