"Despite ARB’s desire to protect a title (rather than a standard of work), not a single day goes by without LinkedIn reminding me that there is this vacancy for a system/data architect which I may be interested in. I find this amusing.
This is an old article, but it does touch two points I wanted to talk about for a long time: how the two architectures can relate to each other and what is the added value that traditional (good) architects bring to the table.
I am aware that as technologies advance and prices drop, a misleading sense of ability has spread everywhere resulting on what i can only describe as a world of universal average. This has affected the world of photography, graphic design, music… and of course architecture. However, in terms of architecture, I also think that part of the problem comes from the fact that architects have not found a way to clearly explain, what is it that we bring to the table that the average person cannot.
1.Architects can listen to a client visualize their life and incorporate this into a design.
2.They think in terms of lifetime: accessibility, flexibility, sustainability, cost and value for money.
3.They can understand the potential of a site and how to both minimize risk and create delight.
4. They can picture how it will feel to enter a room, what the best spatial arrangement will be for a particular person and what difference will the size of window make to that space.
I accept that there are, in the UK, people without the relevant training who have really good design skills and trained architects who don’t, however, you just need to look around any town to realize that neither are the majority.
This sentence in the article by Mr Rosen sums it up for me: “Technology is important but won’t determine if your system is still providing value in 10 or 20 years.” I agree. Our strength , as a profession, is to look forward on to the future… working closely with our clients."
(From atelier EURA's scrapbook on ScoopIT , here, commenting on this article at Technology Transfer)