Honestly, probably not the best way to start off a blog by talking about why I’m choosing architecture via outlining its downsides… Hey, architecture is often contradictory anyways!

The architectural profession has, for a large part of its history, been a profession seemingly reserved for service to the wealthy or powerful. Be it the construction of the Forbidden City, Palace of Versailles, Trump Tower, 111w57 or even Fallingwater, they were all initially (or still are) commissioned by individuals who have had more money or political influence (heck, usually both!) than they knew what to do with.

Sadly, this meant that for the ordinary working or middle class citizen, hiring an architect to build you something tailored to, well, yourself, was (and certainly still is) a pretty farfetched idea. Luckily, recent citizen-developer co-designing projects have been flaring up across the globe, with a notable example being in Chile, where architect Alejandro Aravena (alongside associates) put the idea of ‘participatory design’ into practice, a self-explanatory design process which involves all parties from the architects, developer, contractors to future homeowners. Another great example could be the work of Burkinabe architect Deberes Francis Kere, who meticulously used limited funds to produce (alongside the local village community, of course) quality and safe housing + educational units. This was accomplished using incredibly rudimentary materials such as mud and peat, leading to him winning the Pritzker in 2022 for projects in similar veins to this.

Ok, so this is pretty good, isn’t it? Where’s the contradiction in architecture then? 

Well, talk about brushing the tip of the iceberg.

Architects pride themselves on producing structures which conform to the zeitgeist of modern society; in the modern day this relates greatly to the development of social housing, environmentally/culturally aware units and inclusive societal microcosms. Architecture students are therefore lead to believe that, in the near future, they’ll be spearheading the production of the next progressive architectural paradigm shift when, in reality, they’ll most likely be working under corrupt developers to produce luxury housing units or inadequate, ugly and environmentally unsustainable suburban sprawl. They’ll need to make money somehow, and, with budding architects being one of the least paid professions in the UK for the amount of work they put in, accepting any commission that comes your way becomes natural instinct. Oh yeah, don’t forget about the fact that you’ll have to pay back a shedload of money to the government for those couple of years of student loans, thanks to the restructuring of the university loan system after a series of chaotic government ‘reforms’.

After this, an individual is likely to fall out of interest with architecture, preferring to pursue different design-oriented careers, spiral into a stress-induced depression (25% of young architects struggle with this!) or just become a soulless cog in the machine of a second grade architecture firm, themselves subservient to the uber-rich. The idea that a profession to dream so much about a utopian future, yet is forced to produce unmotivated practitioners, often ostracized from the rest of society due to a difference in taste (another matter in itself), is incredibly counterproductive, is it not?

A few months ago, I attended a little event presented by seasoned architects on the subject of ‘What would I tell my younger self’, hosted at Bournemouth Uni. At that point in time, I was kind of clueless as to what a career in architecture would entail; wanted to delve a little deeper seen as I’m already in my first year at 6^th form (womp womp). To my surprise (though, retrospectively, it shouldn’t have been) the attendees were mainly first to third year architecture students at that very university. Now this was a group of people who positively radiated friendliness and interest in the creative arts; so happen to have had a similar thought process to me when picking their course. One guy who I talked to actually took Biology, Psychology and Physical Education for his A-levels, subjects which I’d have thought not even remotely related to architecture, so that was a pretty big eye-opener. From what the speakers talked about, it seemed that architecture at university was a pipe dream come true- professors put you up to design various fantastical concepts, be it grand museums, sustainable neighborhood arcologies or grand penthouses, no wonder it’s a course that would garner attraction from all types of people!

However, looking back, I realize that I glazed over a major problem stressed in every presentation: the catastrophic disconnect between architecture at uni and that very same subject in real life. Students will likely, in their careers, not be able to channel their university experience into IRL applications for until they attribute enough merit from doing mundane projects where they act as but another person in a group of unknowns. This will be vastly different from their university career; on some occasions people might have to just start from the drawing board again when it comes to operating as an ‘actual’ architect, removing themselves from delusions of years past and essentially learning what should’ve been taught in their 5 year architectural education beforehand. Honestly, I kinda feel bad for that colourful variety of students who I met…

If architecture truly is this ‘continuation of dialogue between generations’, as Vincent Scully would interestingly describe it, then why on earth is this disconnect between academia and practice still present? Surely be following the evolution of human society, architecture should be morphed into something more friendly and accepting to her young students, rather than remain as this conservative stronghold where developers rule? This contradictory nature of architecture is probably my primary quarrel with architecture, as far as my currently limited understanding of it goes; I hope that either I’m wrong about this & my early career won’t be so miserable after all, or that architecture, in the oncoming decades, gradually pulls itself out of this educational fiasco.