Introduction

Architects, so one hears over and over, are no longer needed in the cultural sphere but rather, as part of the service economy or as business people. The client increasingly locates responsibility for the risks of costs and schedule not only with the firms which will realize the project, but with the planners. Architects therefore feel compelled to offer a complete service, including all phases of building, and to complete their work as efficiently as possible.

In order to do so, there is a need for new organizational forms in design and planning. These in turn require that architects have new capacities, beyond their traditional areas of competence. Among these are the ability to think creatively in business, to work in interdisciplinary groups, and to solve unforeseen and formerly non-existent problems with flexibility and inventiveness. At the same time, globalization demands an internationalism for which foreign language skills are one requisite, but which also have far-reaching organizational and cultural implications. In order to deal with the demand for a complete building service, architects must have knowledge of contractual law, organizational methods, quality control and conflict management. And since no one can do all this himself, the ability and desire to work collaboratively has become central.

The complaint that the architect’s most fundamental ability, design, will be neglected may be valid, but it does not have to be. The issue here is not necessarily a shift in abilities but rather their expansion. In a business world in which real estate is no longer the object of passion or even a status symbol, but merely a commodity, the quality of this commodity is increasingly important amidst growing competition. Insightful and cultivated investors have long-since recognized this fact. Even for those investors who are only interested in buying and selling a building at the greatest profit, quality remains a central attribute. It is quality that in-sures the value, and thus the resale value, of real estate. A building which is inserted intelligently into the city, which is well constructed and well-designed proves itself a better investment even in the rudest and most unscrupulous business world than a building that is poorly built.

In other words: it appears that in the future, the architect will still have to be a good designer as well as – above and beyond that – well organized and good at business. In addition to a new attitude towards the profession, this requires a new education.

Our school responds precisely to this need. The curricular reforms that we have been preparing for the past two years aim precisely to educate this new, demanding type of architect. The process of reform is not yet complete; and it will be several years before its concrete consequences for a generation of students are clear. Nevertheless, several important steps have already been undertaken and put into effect.

This is evidenced by the yearbook, which documents the current state (and, in part, the current frame of mind) of our school. This goal distinguishes it from previous yearbooks, both in its structure as well as in its design. The fact that this structure was possible, and that it could be filled with this content, is thanks to my colleagues. I include teaching assistants here, but also and above all, the students. The clarity, precision and appropriateness of the design – all qualities we would claim for architectural education – is the work of Fritz Gottschalk and Sascha Lötscher. Denise Michel with Bruno Dobler was responsible for coordination and editing. My most heartfelt thanks to all of them. Their great commitment and knowledge contributed to the fact that the normally rote exercise of a yearbook could become a document of the school’s careful self-reconception.

Vittorio Magnago Lampugnani
Head of the Department of Architecture

Zurich, October 2000