Alvin Huang, AIA, Principal of Synthesis Design + Architecture, provided insights into issues the profession is facing and how small firm dive in and swim through them. This firm also garnered a 2013 Merit Award for Small Projects for their project [C]SPACEPAVILION. The jury loved the concept of the pavilion, particularly for how the project engages the public “in a smart and friendly way.” Something about the responses below mimics the jury’s belief.
What defines a great practice?
As a small firm that operates at the intersection of academia and practice, the firms that we look up to are those that are able to balance those two realms. Not so much in the sense of teaching and practicing, but in terms of engaging practice as a form of discourse. We truly believe that what distinguishes “architecture” from “building” is how projects relate to, or contribute to, the continuous evolution of the discourse that surrounds our profession and continues to push it forward. “Architecture” is much bigger than “building”. Professional and technical competence is critical, but should be subservient to an architectural vision that engages a wider vision or broader discussion.
In my eyes, the best firms are those that are able to synthesize a creative/critical vision with a high level of professional delivery/service and an acute business sense that highlights the value of their work both externally and internally. Too often as architects we do not value our own efforts in the same way that our allied disciplines do, and this trickles down from misaligned incentives in our contracts to the reliance on unpaid or underpaid interns. There is no such thing as sole authorship in design, and we need to embrace collaborative practices and value ourselves.
A great practice is able to find that balance between leveraging their own creative and critical stances within the discourse of architecture, alongside addressing the requirements of their clients and stakeholders to produce finely crafted results.
What was the defining point which inspired you to jump off and begin your own firm?
The defining moment for me, happened in the winter of 2010 when I was recruited to apply for a number of tenure-track teaching positions. I knew that I was interested in engaging academia, but also knew that I was not interested in being a full-time academic. I also knew that I did not want to try and start a practice as a part-time endeavor (while I was teaching). So, I took a big gamble and decided to quit my job and bet on the fact that I would land one of those positions while relying on the fact that we had enough in savings to support my family in the meantime. This allowed me to focus full-time on establishing a design identity for my new venture, and clarify for myself what the product I was trying to sell actually was. Luckily, following many months of defining and identity, networking, and entering unpaid competitions, I was not only able to land a couple of paid projects, I was also offered my current position at the University of Southern California School of Architecture. As a small practice, having that steady income to support myself and my family is invaluable from an economic standpoint, but also from the standpoint of having the continued engagement with the discourse of design.
What is the single biggest issue impacting the future of the profession?
This is a loaded question, and of course sustainability is the current buzzword that has to be addressed. However, I think sustainability is so big of an issue that it has become a base requirement, meaning it is now actually fundamental to the production of architecture. We don’t need to highlight it as a goal, just like we don’t need to highlight the fact that buildings should be structurally sound. Though we do need to make it an integral part of the design process, rather than an additive response.
I think perhaps the biggest issue that will impact our profession in the future is the actual value of the services we provide and the general perception of the value of design by the wider community. With current estimates speculating that nearly 85-95% of the built environment is not designed by architects, the embarrassing fact that architects are statistically proven to have the lowest rate of return on educational investment, and the continued declines in enrollment in architectural education, it seems to me that the future of the profession has to be focused on increasing the value or the perception of the value of what we are doing.
If you or someone you know wants to answer these questions on behalf of a small firm, contact Tibby Rothman, trothman@aiacalifornia.org, 916.367.3404.