IN-PERSON Prague Research & Teaching Conference

Abstract

In the United States, architectural pedagogy is concentrated in the design studio. While the accredited curriculum includes courses in physics, math, structures, history, drawing, psychology, philosophy, art, literature, etc., those classes are referred to as “support” courses. In theory, architecture students will synthesize knowledge from the full breadth of their coursework and demonstrate that learning in their studio assignments. In practice, we find those support courses are devalued as students are expected to devote the majority of their time and energy in production for architectural design studio projects. With this paper, I use my experience and observations teaching a seminar course titled, “Race and Gender Constructions in Architecture” as a heuristic device. I argue that few architects are well prepared to practice in today’s diverse and complex society because their coursework is narrowly focused on design, outside of social context. The students in this course, taught for eight years at three different schools of architecture, reported it was the only course in which they were introduced to salient issues of inequality based on ascribed identity. For the few students of color and women in the class, they experienced topics, literature, arguments, and debate in which they were centered, rather than marginalized. Because design studio is evaluated based on aesthetics, style, formal manipulation, and time immersion, support courses with topics that include the history of architectural segregation based on race, the role of privilege in capitalist economies, masculinity as an organizing device, and other structural issues are not considered.