Of formula 1 drivers and architectural schools

The recent trend that I see around me, is the emphasis on creativity by schools of architecture. They say students shouldn't be bogged down with technicalities in order for creativity to flourish. If we were were to visit architecture schools' students exhibitions these days, we will be inundated with free flowing forms, exotic angles, exploded geometries fantastically produced. I happened to visit one of these exhibitions. At first glance I was impressed by the manipulation of 3d spaces and objects (often facilitated by CAD). On closer inspection, i was horrified to see ergonomics, structure, environmental design and rational function being compromised to the brink of total anti-architecture.
I would like to challenge the proponent of the liberal creative with this analogy. It is not right for a driving school to aim to produce F1 drivers. It will be dangerous, when people who enrolled into driving school be trained to drive F1 cars. It would produce dangerous drivers, dangerous to the public. Similarly, architectural schools are training people who will put up buildings. The potential damage from buildings is more permanent and not easilty rectifiable. It is much better to produce boring but safe, comfortable, env friendly buildings rather than exotic ones with all sorts of problems.

Welcome to Responsible Architecture

Hi, welcome to my blog. Its about architecture in general, but a little more emphasis on green issues, you know, sustainable, ecologic, green stuff etc. By now these terms have come to be a little more than mere cliches. So, to outpace the lesser normal people, i have come up with a new term: Responsible architecture.

Why responsible? Because what Im seeing around me, are irresponsible architects, coming up with irresponsible design. As simple as that.