][<en
Sunday morning, should be packing for yet another house move, but instead catching up on email.
Loved your ruminations around this topic.
Coincidentally, yesterday afternoon I was finally (after 20+ years) throwing out my university lecture notes - forced to it by unseen water ingress in the garage turning 40% of them into mouldy slush - and came across the unit on architectural education. Am out of touch now, but even 20 years ago, there was still a small sector of the architectural profession that had lingering doubts about the direction of architectural education. Our studies (in the mid-1980s) tended to draw upon writings from the mid-1960s, but even so, the hangover of involving practising architects in the design studio process demonstrates the commitment (philosophical, if not real) to the old concept of architects as apprentices rather than being taught.
When I reflect on what I have learned about buildings and how they work and what to do to make them work, it is clear to me that whilst the theoretical principles of structural mechanics and heat transfer and water movement have been essential, it has been the hands-on investigation of buildings and working with a wide array of very knowledgeable people, both trades and professions, that has really taught me what I know about the way buildings work and how we can put them together more effectively.
So when it comes to how-to books - I'm in agreement that we don't need more books. What we need is better ways of indexing and accessing the published knowledge that already exists. What we need is better linkages between the people who know and the people who want to learn. What we need is innovative ways of sharing that information - I love the concept of John Leeke's videoconferences. Timezone isn't working for me just yet, but I can see how the idea could really transform learning possibilities.
Got to go as there is much still to pack.
Cheers
David
________________________________
From: The listserv that doubts your pants are worth $42 million. on behalf of Gabriel Orgrease
Sent: Fri 3/08/2007 6:51 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [BP] What would you like to read?
I have been asked by a book editor at a prominent publishing house to
consider the viability of a book, or series of books that would present
a how-to for traditional trades that would be of interest for architects
and property (home) owners to read with it in mind that they would have
access to better understand the role of traditional trades in historic
conservation work and to bridge the 'gap' between trades and design. In
respect of this I have been asked to ask my friends annd peers what sort
of book they would like to read , and I presume purchase.
My perspective on what is needed insofar as to bridge the gap is way off
from a series of how-to books focused on techniques. I see absolutely no
use for more introductory level how-to books, or to replicate what
Taunton (the example I threw out) already has a lock on, or that any
practicing traditional trades if they have not already authored a book
(Gerard Lynch comes to mind) would either be able to get a book together
(inarticulate, adverse to speaking much let alone paranoid around
letters, more busy wanting to make a living than write about it) or
would want their hard-earned trade knowledge spread around in a book.
In the conversation we touched on discussing John Leeke and his how-to
series of booklets... all of which I own and have used and studied. It
seems John's work has created an inspiration in the mainstream
publishing world.
I suspect there is a lack of understanding as to how John goes about
putting his booklets together, or his motivations in doing so, or to
what extent he is focused on them to enhance his marketing efforts to
the very personal touch he has with the local communities that he works
with. I have stood with John and watched him work with a level of
engagement and patience with a client that I can only envy. My
perspective on the book question --- as to what anyone would want to pay
to read -- was that it would be more relevant... if one wants to bridge
the 'gap' to write a human-interest profile of John Leeke (and others),
to be sensitive to our individual eccentricities, and that it would be
of more value to design professionals in histo presto to understand a
restoration carpenter's values, perspectives and world view as it
pertains to the overall integrated team approach than to know just what
tools and techniques they use to remove glazing from a window sash.
[This week I found out what a hacking knife is by picking up the phone
and expressing that I felt really stupid breaking so much window sash
glass and needed help. It would have taken me too long to have found it
in a book.... though possibly I don't recall that John explains hacking
knives in his booklets, actually, he might have explained it in one of
his wonderful online videos just I can't remember anything as well as
when I really really need it.]
Besides, this technical information for any design professional involved
with histo presto is readily available without the need for a new series
of books, and the design professionals, as I see it, are more than
casually responsible to seek out how the work is actually done in the
practicing trades without need of introductory level written materials
focused on technique. They should already know their business, and they
should know how to know their business, is how I see it. And those
design professionals who are not already informed in how to learn about
technique, or inclined to interface with the trades on their project
teams, likely would not be interested in or persuaded by a book focused
on how-to technique with an idea to change their viewpoints.
A few years back I queried John as to an idea I had to do a sort of
Studs Terkel, Working series of profiles of individual trades
practitioners in historic conservation. At the time John seemed to think
that was a good idea. I would think to combine it with a Foxfire
approach for a little bit of non-controversial technique. Combine it
with a background understanding of the preservation industry as it
functions day-to-day and how trades practitioners see their role, how
they act out their role in engagement with project teams and with design
professionals. Combine it with the understanding and experiences gained
through engagement with the PTN community. (With the editor we talked a
good deal about the relationship between PTN and APT. I am wondering
actually if the perception of a 'gap' is engendered in a sort of
intellectual naivety, a being a few years behind the times in current
organizational, community and network activities within the preservation
industry. I don't see any gap. What I see is there are a few people that
don't seem to like me and they keep their distance and it has not done
me any concern that I can see for me to miss them. If that is a gap then
I must really be missing out!)
There was also discussion if say a timber framer would be interested to
read a how-to book about stonemasonry. I think it more relevant that a
timber framer wants to know a stonemason, or two, and comes to that by
knowing how a stonemason thinks (or drinks), than to ask a timber framer
to pay close attention to technique in laying up a dry stone wall. I
commented on how my spending 12 days wandering around Poland with a
gaggle of timber framers drove me near nuts - all they look at is wood!
and that on occasion I had to run outside of whatever sacred site we
were climbing around the attic of in order to go look at some rocks in
the landscape.
As to a series of how-to books I hope that I was direct in expressing
that I do not feel in any manner qualified to judge if one technique is
any better than another. I have zero interest in involvement with a
how-to book or series. As I see it such a series is best led by an
individual with an academic-research background and goes to the entire
issue of jumping in feet first to integrity of information issues, in
short that a non-trades person would not know what they were talking
about when it comes to technique in practice. May not even suspect that
they do not know what they are talking about. And I doubt that any
self-respecting tradesperson would open up very easily to share any
depth of knowledge of technique with a know-nothing researcher. But I
suppose that could be turned into a book and sold to somebody before it
got remaindered.
Kathy just brought up example of Joe Jenkin's self-published roof
slaters book and it occurs to me why would anyone want to spend the time
to replicate what he has already so competently accomplished in a truly
useful how-to book?
The following was my initial e-mail response to the query:
I am particularly interested in the area of communications that occurs
in the narrow focus between design professionals and the practicing
trades as it relates specific to historic conservation. I have been
involved on the trade side in historic work for near on to thirty years.
I have spent many more years than that writing.
In my work I have often found the crux of a project was not so much the
technical nature of the trade work, as it was to the issues around
communications between the designers and the trade practitioners. The
gap that you refer to is one developed over many years for reasons to
account to both sides. On the one hand the architects in a need to
promote the development of their profession distinguished themselves
from the builder-designer with a tendency to alienate the trades. The
development of an industrialized architecture, prefabrication etc. has
also tended to portray the trades as an interchangeable commodity. The
trades, in turn, having by nature a very tactile and process oriented
approach to materials, and the physical world in general, often are
perplexed at the impractical or otherworldly perspective exhibited by
design professionals. Add to this that the trades tend to assume a
higher than reasonable degree of intelligence in the design
professionals, a given of the design professionals having had a formal
education as opposed to the trades learning mostly from work experience
in mentoring relationships. Add to this the intense focus required by
degree design programs where young professionals are not particularly
encouraged to engage with the trades in the physical building process,
if not outright lectured to distrust the trades. Let alone that there is
a fundamental difference in the neurological make-up of design
professionals and trades insofar as how their intelligences work out in
the world at large.
The other focus that I have is that the gap as it is perceived is based
on a model of relationships that is highly conducive to new building.
Historic conservation as an industry occurs within the larger context of
all types of construction. When the current model of relationships is
applied to the existing built environment it is no longer optimal and
quickly breaks down. For example, the traditional trades who practice in
historic conservation cannot be effectively approached as
interchangeable commodities. To find a blacksmith with experience who
will be willing and able to work in the NYC environment (where there is
usually not much call for blacksmiths) with a knowledge and
understanding as to how to cut threads onto existing wrought iron stair
spindles is not going to be an interchangeable individual. Within the
context and training of design professionals there is an emphasis on
unique design creativity that precludes to a certain extent a comfort
level with work on structures pre-existing, historic, and otherwise
designed by someone in the past. Architects who work in historic
preservation, as opposed to new design work, have an acknowledged
problem with understanding their role within their own set of
professional peers, let alone with understanding the dynamic of engaging
and communicating effectively with trades on a project.
All of the above said, in a book that would address this gap, and the
revision of the construction model of relationships, what danger I see
would be to express the issues in the abstracted manner that I have
presented above.
My suggestion would be one book that through example assembles a
collection of the full range of professional trades, as you outline, and
to endeavor to solicit from each set of trades practitioners their
reflections in their words wherever possible on the nature of the gap,
and in turn, to include perspectives of design professionals who see a
need for a change in the model of relationships. There certainly is a
perception that is held both by trade practitioners and design
professionals that there is something seriously wrong with the manner in
which the current model of construction relationships is applied to
conservation of the built environment. What it comes down to in the end
is that there is a strong commonality of values and end-goals between
the perspectives of individuals on all sides of the gap. In a wider
global perspective, and consideration of sustainable habitat, those on
both sides have a much more vital and important role to play as team
members with respect to common goals than may consciously be realized. I
feel that any book that would open up avenues for increased
understanding between design professionals and traditional trades would
be of value.
][<en
>
--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
|
