Response to "Change or Perish: Report on Integrated Practice"

Thom Mayne's talk is an attempt to give the architectural profession a wake up call that the design process has permanently changed through the computerization of design and production and that architects who do not adapt will, in his words, "perish." I felt that his rhetoric was too dramatic for the points he was making, and that his points did not apply universally across the profession at this time. Mayne operates in the world of high design, competing for high profile projects that get on the covers of magazines. This is a tiny fraction of architecture as it is currently practiced, and I am not convinced that Mayne fully understands the average architectural practice in the U.S.

His office's workflow, which is entirely digital, is still beyond the reach of the vast majority of firms. Mayne clearly prides himself on being ahead of the curve, and it does seem that eventually many more firms will reach his level of technology and 3d-dominated design process, but I think it will be many more years than he expects before his way of working becomes more widely adopted.

His comments show his biases quite clearly, which also makes it hard to take him as seriously. He seems to critique architectural education for continuing to teach students to draw plans and sections. I have never heard this raised as a critique of education before. It is almost shocking to think that an architect has completely discounted the 2d methods of representation that have been the backbone of the discipline for its entire history. But considering Mayne's further comments, particularly where he says, "One of the problems with our profession ... is that it's so overly invested in incredibly antiquated ideas and style and history and notions that should have been gone a hundred years ago," his radical views about what schools should be teaching seem to fit within his broader perspective which is anchored by its rejection of the history of the discipline.

Putting my deep philosophical differences with Mayne aside with regards to the importance of history and tradition in the practice of architecture today, his description the design process of his office is exciting for the  extent of his iterative process. The 3d printing of physical models from rapidly produced 3d models allows him and his designers to test their designs more than would have been possible in the past. For his way of working, this seems to be a great process that will lead to a more innovative and adaptable architecture. I disagree with Mayne with the cavalier way he assumes that his way of working is the way that all firms will need to adapt to in order to survive. It could more accurately be rephrased, I believe, to say that all starchitects will need to adapt to these changes in design process in order to survive at the top of the architectural heap. There will always be a vast amount of "ordinary" buildings built by "ordinary" firms that just don't require the kind of exclusively digital and 3d process that Mayne advocates. I am convinced that 2d drawings will remain an integral part of the profession for the duration of my career and well beyond. While there are certainly exciting new opportunities that will emerge, I don't think technology is going to turn the profession on its head in the way that Mayne envisions.