This week’s interview is with Odile Decq, founder of Studio Odile Decq in Paris and dean of the private architecture university Confluence Institute for Innovation and Creative Strategies in Architecture in Paris, France.

Odile has been working as an architect and urban planner for almost 40 years. The Banque Populaire de l’Ouest in Rennes, won in 1988, marked her breakthrough and earned her (and her partner Benoît Cornette) eight awards. Many remarkable project followed, to name but a few: Le Cargo, Paris; Fangshan Museum, Nanjing; MACRO, Rome; FRAC Bretagne, Rennes, and Phantom: Opéra Garnier’s restaurant, Paris.

In addition, Odile has been teaching architecture for the past 25 years, first at the Bartlett in London and then in Paris at the École Spéciale d’Architecture (ESA), were she was director from 2007 to 2012. Her teaching commitment ratified by the opening of her own school in Lyon, France: the Confluence Institute for Innovation and Creative Strategies in Architecture.

When the school was launched in 2014 Odile wrote:

We believe that today it is fundamental to totally rethink architectural education. […] Architecture must no longer be reduced to a professional or specialized education: it is a discipline that opens to the world, to a way of seeing the world and a capacity to act in the world. Architecture today needs to have a more humanist ambition.

It’s quite obvious, that Archipreneur wanted to speak with her! So we did, we spoke about the problem in architecture education, architecture thinking, the role of architecture in the world, and her visions for her school.

Enjoy the interview!

Back in 1978, do you still remember why you opened your own studio instead of working for a boss?

First of all, during my studies I had been starting a kind of interior design office, started on my 3^rd year. Architecture schools in France were quite unstructured and more experimental; especially the one where I was which later became La Villette. I was thinking of not doing internships, but to start working in real conditions instead through people and relatives I knew.

After receiving my diploma, the possibilities to work were quite few due to the bad economy in building after the first oil crisis. So, naturally I continued to work, on my own, established as an independent architect. My chance was my diploma in Urbanism which opened for me some work studies for small cities, allowing me to survive.

You created so many amazing buildings! Could you name one project, that was important for your career and why?

The first important buildings in my career are the two buildings for the Banque Populaire de l’Ouest close to Rennes that I won at the beginning of 1988, 10 years after my diploma. These buildings received immediately many international awards before any French ones, were widely published and made my office known all over the world. This building was experimental in many ways, glass façades done for the first time with suspended double glass (with Peter Rice), a steel structure for an office building (first time in France), and an experimental long lobby entrance.

You launched the Confluence Institute for Innovation and Creative Strategies in Architecture in Lyon in 2014. What made your decision?

I decided to start a new school of architecture the evening when I resigned from my position as director of my former school. It was like a challenge launched when drinking with friends who were telling me that I shouldn’t stop doing what I had done for that school! I.e. opening it to an international level, creating a workshop, organizing end of semester exhibitions of student work opened to the public, renovating the building etc.

More specifically, I deeply wanted to push forward changing the way architecture education was established all over the world. I knew and still know how it is as I am travelling every month to give lectures in schools that I visit and understand that the academic conditions have trapped education in rigid frames that some wanted to evolve, but not many were in the conditions to be able to do it.

What is the problem with architecture education today?

Architecture education today is mainly oriented in teaching how to design and build buildings. It may seem paradoxical to say that, but it is a very narrow minded thinking on what is architecture. Students leaving most of the schools today are only trained to go working into architectural offices. Moreover, half of the students are women, nearly 60%, and they work for less money in offices (between 25 and 30% less), they seldom register in the professional organizations (less than 30%), and never become the head of their own office (less than 10%).

That means that half of the students disappears or become employed workers in offices. What is the future that we provide for them? Is this what they expected when doing their studies when most of the time they were very good students?

When reading most of the enquiries done on the new young generation, more than half of them do not want to be employees, they want to work for themselves. These two questions must give objectives for educators today: to help students being self-confident in themselves in order to become entrepreneurs, to give students the skills to open the way of practicing architecture and to give them enough autonomy to decide who they want to become and how they want to build their own life.

You said: “Architects needs to become more entrepreneurial”. We think so too! Can you elaborate on that?

Architecture is more a discipline and a culture than only a profession. This is a unique way of thinking the world and acting in it. Facing very complex questions that implicate most of the disciplines such as law, art, anthropology, philosophy, design, geography, sociology, technics, etc. We are trained to make synthesis with all of them together in order to create a diagnosis from which we then need to do a proposal that has to be efficient at every scale from the littlest one to the biggest one. This uniqueness is for me the definition of “Architecture Thinking”.

We need to reinstate the pride of being educated in architecture and the role of the architect for the world. Due to all of that, students need to be prepared and trained to decide how to apply their uniqueness and this is not only by designing and building buildings. Training as entrepreneurs they will be able to act and help the world.

Confluence has five thematic fields that are part of the education: Neurosciences, New technologies, Social action, Visual Art, and Physics. Why these five?

These thematic fields are the principals and this is because their concern is the human being. I strongly believe that architectural studies need to be re-orientated toward more humanistic questions, to me more integrated in the prospective visions about our future way of living. This is why we need to rethink this thematic and more.

Are business and entrepreneurship courses part of the curriculum?

Being an entrepreneur or having an entrepreneurial attitude is not studying business! This is not a discipline that they learn, even if we have some seminars driven by people who built their own careers and could be seen by students as role models. This is more an attitude that they get through autonomy and responsibility. Instead of asking them to do, they are put in conditions to decide how to behave and how to manage.

Do you have any advice for archipreneurs who are interested in starting their own business?

Always believe it is possible. You need to have a bit of talent but more determination. Be involved, take strong positions, take risks and don’t be afraid of failing. We learn from failures more than successes.

“Taking risks – collaborating – making mistakes – learning form one’s mistakes – persevering – discovering new concepts and succeeding”

This is one of the slogans of the school.

How do you see the future of the architectural profession? In which areas (outside of traditional practice) can you see major opportunities for up and coming developers and architects?

The conditions of the world and the society today are the optimal conditions for the future; this saying seems very provocative. But we are in the 21st century and not in the 20^th anymore, so we can’t continue to drive the world the same way. This is a great opportunity for new directions, new ways of thinking and acting. Architecture will not escape that transformation and this is the duty of the new generation, the one graduating in the 21^st century and living in it. Their task is to invent the century, to create it by deciding which life they want to have. This is not being developers and architects only. I trust in the new young generation to surprise us!

About Odile Decq

Odile Decq is a French architect and urban planner. International renown came in 1990 with her first major commission: La Banque Populaire de l’Ouest in Rennes. Since then, she has been faithful to her fighting attitude while diversifying and radicalizing her research. Being awarded The Golden Lion of Architecture during the Venice Biennale in 1996 acknowledged her early and unusual career. Other than just a style, an attitude or a process, Odile Decq’s work materializes a complete universe that embraces urban planning, architecture, design and art. Her multidisciplinary approach was recently recognized with the Prix Femme Architecte in 2013 and the Jane Drew Prize in 2016.

Her most recent projects include: Le Cargo [Paris, 2016]; La Résidence Saint-Ange [Seyssins, 2015]; Fangshan Museum [Nanjing, 2015]; GL Events Headquarters [Lyon, 2014]; MACRO [Rome, 2010]; FRAC Bretagne [Rennes, 2012] and Phantom: Opéra Garnier’s restaurant [Paris, 2011].

Odile Decq has been teaching architecture for the past 25 years, a commitment ratified by the opening in 2014 of her own school in Lyon, France: the Confluence Institute for Innovation and Creative Strategies in Architecture.

The post Award-Winning Architect Odile Decq on Rethinking Architectural Education appeared first on Archipreneur.

There is a reason why the term “architecture” is no longer only associated with designing and building physical spaces. The architecture of applications, websites, software and networks all illustrate the manifold nature of what it means to practice architecture today.

Architecture has broadened as a field, merging various disciplines, technologies and products. This expansion requires a new educational model to teach students how to innovate and compete in an industry that is increasingly outward facing.

When we say there is a gap between academia and practice, we don’t only mean that architecture schools are failing to prepare students for entering the workforce. The bigger problem seems to be that, while schools may teach students to be innovative in terms of design, there is an overwhelming lack of similarly pioneering content for the business side of architecture.

This disconnect becomes even more alarming when we compare the industry 10 years ago with the industry today, where entrepreneurship has emerged as the most compelling economic force the world has experienced in the last decades.

It is true that architectural education needs to strike a balance between the theoretical and practical aspects of the profession. But more importantly, architectural courses need to teach students to take a proactive role in building their careers.

RIBA’s recent research found that 80 percent of UK-based employers and 75 percent of students think that architectural schools fail to provide students with the practical tools necessary to enter the workforce. In June 2014, RIBA Appointments carried out two complementary surveys.

One was sent to employers in the architectural industry and the other to architectural students and recent graduates. The surveys show that over 80 percent of employers and 74 percent of students think that architectural schools put theoretical knowledge above practical capability.

More than 50 percent of employers and students think that architectural course content doesn’t accurately reflect the field of architecture today.

Even more importantly, architecture degrees also appear to overlook the teaching of soft (transferable) skills. Over 50 percent of employers feel that students/graduates lack the soft skills needed to practice architecture. The profession’s age distribution is at its peak between the ages of 40 and 44, with only one third of the profession being younger than 40.

This proves that architecture schools are failing to connect architecture with entrepreneurship because older staff members are more likely to stick to conventional approaches in their careers. In addition, the age distribution means that existing businesses tend to operate by way of old models, which often fail to adjust to global trends.

Marketing, management, finance and business plan development are some of the concepts that students need to be familiar with in order to find their own, individual and perhaps unconventional ways of engaging with design. Preparing students for an entrepreneurial career and equipping them with the necessary skills and competencies to compete in a rapidly changing economy is a must.

Teaching the same methods and approaches to architecture will generate graduates armed with tools that are already outdated by the time they enter the workplace. Teaching enterprise-oriented professional development in architecture will bring forth a generation of out-of-the-box thinkers and job creators.

“Educationists should build the capacities of the spirit of inquiry, creativity, entrepreneurial and moral leadership among students and become their role model.”  P. J. Abdul Kalam

An encouraging example of entrepreneurial thinking in schools is the Penn State sponsored business accelerator program, Lion Launch Pad (LionLP), which aims to help student entrepreneurs realize their innovative projects and transform service concepts into viable startups.

Students Aaron Wertman and Josh Kesler were selected to design the program so that they could develop Apparatus X, an adaptable tool trailer that doubles up as a micro-living unit. The team behind Apparatus X plans to take the trailer to New Orleans, where it will help with the recovery efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Another student, Mike Zaengle, designed a project that simulates self-contained ecosystems, to allow people to grow food almost anywhere. The project, called GreenTowers, includes various products that help cultivate urban farming, including tables with aquaponic gardens.

Kevin Pu, a 22-year-old student at Ryerson, is making a splash in the Canadian architecture industry with his research into augmented reality. His Augmented Reality in Development Design (ARIDD) is a piece of software that creates live interactive building models in real time and can be used on an iPad.

Using computer-generated sensory input such as sound, video, graphics or GPS data, users can create and simulate designs in real-world environments. Although there are several examples of this technology being developed by startups all over the world, the interesting angle in this story is that Pu has entered the industry while still a student.

It is important that architects no longer frame their professional identity through the buildings that they design. Venturing from these conventional notions of architecture requires a level of initiative and preparedness to confront uncertainty and obstacles.

The profession in general needs to learn to become more entrepreneurial in its approach and so expand its opportunities beyond the confines of the industry. Lateral thinking and problem solving are soft skills that are considered the innate marks of architects, but these need to be nurtured in order to effectively combine design with entrepreneurship.

It is high time for architecture schools to incorporate lessons into their programs that focus on recognizing opportunities, testing feasibility, analyzing the competition and developing effective business plans.

Designing apps and software, learning about areas peripheral to the discipline of architecture, and understanding how to develop unique designs by him or herself are some of the many ways a student can take advantage of unexplored opportunities within the A/E/C industry. If these skills were to be taught at school, they would empower students to become archipreneurs.

How do you think architecture degrees and programs can be improved to facilitate a more entrepreneurial mindset in students?

The post Why Entrepreneurship Needs a Place in Architectural Education appeared first on Archipreneur.

This week’s interview is with Will Hunter, Founder and Director of the new London School of Architecture (LSA), which proposes a different type of educational enterprise. The LSA wants to make architectural education more affordable, with emphasis on ‘real world practice’ and preparing talented graduates for tackling the vast changes that the architectural profession is currently undergoing.

Here are Will’s thoughts on architectural education, alternative routes for architectural professionals and the future of the profession.

I hope you enjoy the interview!

What made you decide to found the LSA? Was there a particular moment that sealed the decision for you?

The original idea came in 2012 when the tuition fees cap in England was raised to £9,000 per year. I was worried about the effect this would have on access to architectural education. A group of like-minded collaborators and I started to explore different financial and pedagogic models for educating architects. Ultimately we sought to forge a new relationship between practice and academia to enhance both.

Could you tell us about the LSA’s approach to architectural education? What do you want to do differently, compared to more the traditional architectural education courses out there?

We’re offering a two-year post-graduate programme in partnership with London Metropolitan University and 50 architecture practices based in the capital city.

A lot of courses that have a practice component deliver it as a block – so a year in practice, then a year in the school. In our course, they run continuously, so first-year students spend three-days per week in practice and two days per week with the school. The students earn a minimum of £12,000 for their three days in practice, and this covers both years’ tuition fees, which are £6,000 per annum, so it’s effectively cost-neutral to study with us.

One of the main innovations of the school are the “Design Think Tanks”, where groups of practices and students collaborate for six months on a piece of speculative design/research around a shared agenda. The themes for this year are extremely varied, from “unstable cities” to “new knowledge”, and I’m super excited to see how these evolve.

We don’t have our own building but use the city as our campus. In the first year, the Design Museum in Shad Thames is our main spatial partner, where lectures and crits will be held. And our new HQ is at Second Home, the extremely cool new workplace for entrepreneurs and creative businesses designed by Spanish Practice Selgas Cano.

In the second year, all the students will be with the LSA full time, and we’ll be renting a studio for them. Their thesis projects will all be based in London. Instead of it being taught using a unit system – where students sign up to a particular direction set by the tutors – our students must develop in the first year a clear critical trajectory for their second year that is individual to them.

You also launched the research group “Alternative Routes for Architecture” (ARFA) to explore different models for architectural education. Could you tell us about the research of that think tank?

ARFA emerged out of an article I wrote in The Architectural Review. Perhaps a dozen people were involved, most of whom are faculty today. In a way, it was a slightly defective think tank in that it didn’t produce a single publication. Instead it morphed into the school.

At one of our meetings [Professor] Nigel Coates (Nigel Coates Studio) said he didn’t like the name ARFA and Deborah Saunt (DSDHA) came up with the London School of Architecture. Naming the project really helped – it turned it into something real we could all work towards.

One of the LSA’s P.R.I.M.E. values is to be “Entrepreneurial”. What are your thoughts on combining architecture and entrepreneurship?

The barrier to studying architecture is not just the high tuition fees but the subsequent low salary expectations – people pay a hundred grand for an MBA because they know they’ll earn a million back. I think one of the agendas of the school is not only to explore how you design buildings, but how you design a practice too.

We’ve constructed the school’s Practice Network to bring in a wide range of contributors on this. On the one hand, five of our practices – Allford Hall Monaghan Morris, Allies and Morrison, Grimshaw, Scott Brownrigg and Aukett Swanke – are in the top 20 biggest practices in the UK, and bring huge insight into how you grow and maintain a successful enterprise and innovate at scale.

On the other hand, some of our smaller practices are acting in really interesting and entrepreneurial ways – SUSD is operating as a creative development consultancy to connect architecture, communities and development, for example, while Studio Octopi has just financed its design for a floating swimming pool in the River Thames through crowd-funding.

As a school we are definitely interested in articulating the value architects bring to our core competency – the design of space – while also exploring adjacent territories where our creative skills can have an impact.

Do you have any advice for architecture students who want to prepare for the rapidly changing architectural profession?

A good place to start would be to read two new books – The Future of the Professions by Richard Susskind and Daniel Susskind and Open Source Architecture by Carlo Ratti and Matthew Claudel – both of which discuss the challenges and opportunities for the profession, particularly in relationship to technology and society. And I’d strongly recommend reading Peter Buchanan’s series of essay The Big Rethink – unmissable.

How do you see the future of architecture? In which areas (outside of traditional practice) can you see major opportunities for up and coming architects?

“Traditional practice” is too big a terrain to concede and I’d really like to see that as one of the biggest opportunities for up-and-coming architects. It is imperative that we retain – and enhance – our position in the design of the built environment.

Put at its simplest, our discipline is the one most capable of synthesising complex forms of information into beautiful and functional spaces and places.

Architects have a huge contribution to make to the world in the 21^st century – particularly in shaping how we can live sustainably and happily within ever-denser cities and within the Earth’s resources. I hope the London School of Architecture produces work at the forefront of these debates.

About Will Hunter

Will trained as an architect at the Bartlett, University College London and at the Royal College of Art. After five years at The Architectural Review, he stepped down as executive editor in February 2015 to focus on setting up the LSA.

Will has contributed to many titles including Wallpaper*, Blueprint and the Financial Times, and has previously been editor of the monthly magazines of The Architects’ Journal and Building Design.

He has taught architecture at both London Metropolitan University and the Royal College of Art, at the latter as a design unit master and chair of the architecture school’s public lecture programme. He has judged numerous competitions, including the Global Architecture Graduate Awards (which he founded) and the RIBA President’s Medals dissertation prize.

Will was the creative director for the RIBA conference Guerilla Tactics 2014 and is currently editing a monograph on Peter Salter’s Walmer Yard housing project in west London (AA Publications).

The post Archipreneur Interview: Will Hunter, Architect & University Founder appeared first on Archipreneur.