Writing Assignment 2: Should Architects Be Master Builders?

      The Master Builder is a dying breed, if not already dead. Buildings are exponentially more complex today than they ever have been. The advent of systems, combined with rapid growth in material availability, has lent to this complexity very much. Architects, like all people who deliver a service, should always try to deliver as high quality of a product as possible. However, we should not risk flying too close to the sun. Perhaps we can truly be masters of a certain style or type of building, with much practice, but asking somebody to truly grasp and control all the possible elements of building today is simply too much.

      Filippo Brunelleschi is the quintessential master builder. To create his iconic dome in Florence, he didn't just tweak existing construction methods; he created his own. He used methods that were revolutionary, and still impressive today. Even with modern construction capabilities, we are not sure if we could replicate a masonry dome of the same size as Brunelleschi's if we had to at this time. That is not only incredibly amazing, but also somewhat embarrassing.

      However, the reading from "Refabricating Architecture" even states that "the Renaissance afforded Filippo Brunelleschi the opportunity to be a master builder due to the relative simplicity of building technologies at the time." Given this, the dome still took sixteen years to be completed. Can you imagine if you told a client that their steeple would take sixteen years to build, much less the whole church? I do not wish to undermine Brunelleschi's achievement. I just want to point out that the times have changed.

      Furthermore, I believe that if we truly had master builders, they may undermine some of the potential gains in building quality and construction time that the readings refer to. "Refabricating Architecture" repeatedly speaks about the assembly process for ships, planes and automobiles. For the most part, they are assembled in blocks by separate facilities, and then pieced together more quickly for final assembly. I do not think that there is anybody who works for General Motors that knows how every part for the dashboard and the drive train of a Sierra truck goes together by heart. That is a good thing. What matters is that there are people who can reliably and efficiently assemble these pieces, and that we as consumers can trust them to do so. If we wish for the construction process to reach the same levels of efficiency and quality of other elaborate machines, then perhaps it is best if we leave the master builder out of the equation. 

      This is not to say that the architect should be some pawn who lies at the mercy of an original equipment manufacturer. People say that you either know a lot about a little, or a little about a lot. I say why not both? Architects must be masters of the spatial aspects of building. Somebody must be there to mold our ideas and materials into useful spaces. Architects can also know about the details that the reading speaks to. The fabrication of materials, means and methods for construction, research for new materials, the list goes on. Building is controlled chaos, now more than ever. It takes many people working together to run the proverbial show. One person cannot hope to be a master of every process that design and construction involves, but they can at least know enough, and try enough, to make a difference.