Ten days left to Comment on Accreditation Requirements for Architecture Schools

I sent NAAB my comments. Thought I'd share here: I was in a graduate architecture program (M.A.) in 1984-1987, after obtaining a liberal arts degree at another school.  It was because of what I had learned in my undergraduate classes (1976-1980) about the degradation of our natural environment that I later decided to enter architecture, and work constructively towards positive environmental results. I expected my architectural program to fill that role as environmental-educator for a new breed of environmentally savvy architects.  Climate change was on the horizon (it wasn’t a secret!), and there were plenty of other environmental and energy-related issues to be dealt with. But my architectural school, and plenty of others across the country, barely dealt with these issues – because they didn’t have to. That was the answer my dean gave me when I asked him where were all the environmentally-conscious design classes:  “Oh, nobody wants to take those classes -- so we dropped them” (1984). The NAAB “conditions” back then were light on energy and environmental issues – to say the least.  And now, to generalize, our current generation of “middle-aged” architects know no better of the environment.  Hence, we spend a good portion of our efforts playing catch-up. It is the role of NAAB to lead, not follow – to create architects for the future, not the past.  The “2020 Conditions” section for Ecological Literacy and Responsibility are empty of the urgency and force that must be prioritized, expressed and exerted onto architectural programs to meet our current and future environmental challenges.  I urge the NAAB to acknowledge its rightful role, raise its collective voice, and raise the current low bar on this criteria. Thank you, Harry Flamm    

Excellent comments, Harry, and I'm sad to say I had almost the exact same experience but 30 years later. When I was applying to graduate programs in 2004, every school told me that sustainability was 'integral' to their curriculums. However, it was quickly apparent that they were lying; to get the kind of environmental education I was seeking I actually ended up getting a second Masters degree (MS) through a school of natural resources because my architecture program (M.Arch) cared so little for this subject (and I went to a top 10 program). There are obviously programs that walk the talk on this (UT Austin comes to mind) but they were few and far between compared to those that SAID they were doing it. I hope that has changed in the last 15 years, but if it hadn't in the previous 30, I'm doubtful. It was a costly lesson to me both in time and money spent, and I would hope that current and future generations would not have to work so hard to get the education our entire profession desperately needs.

I would also encourage everybody to port comments to NAAB. In 2009 I was part of the Society of Building Science Educators group that proposed in our Québec retreat that the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) and the Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB/CCCA) set as a Condition for Accreditation that every North American architecture school’s curriculum provide all graduates with the theoretical and practical competence to consistently design high-quality carbon neutral/zero net energy built environments. Unfortunately, this proposal was rejected. I wrote about this and other principles that I think should be considered in architectural education in this post: https://www.di.net/articles/rethinking-future-sustainable-design/ Later in 2014 while I was president of SBSE we submitted detailed comments and suggestions to NAAB (document attached). We felt that providing specific text added on to their text would be the best way to go. For example, when they talked about "the program must describe its approach for developing graduates who are prepared to both understand and take responsibility for stewardship..." we added "...this includes identification of the individual courses that develop an understanding of those concepts that affect a building’s performance and its ecological footprint." It's what we all do in our practice, we need the metrics and proof not just talk. In addition to my work at CRTKL in am a professor at the Architecture program at Cal Poly Pomona. Fortunately our students do want these classes, many demand them, and faculty do understand their importance. However, because of accreditation requirements in multiple areas, there are less opportunities to teach more than the minimum required. If NAAB does not up its requirements, even if faculty and students want these classes, it will be harder and harder to do. For the last five years I have changed the content of my Environmental Controls class, focusing on the same topics (climate, thermal comfort, passive systems, energy, solar control etc.) but towards the goal of designing NZE and NZC buildings. However, it is already a headache for me to actively engage -sometimes successfully sometimes not- 130 students in one semester with one TA (3 hrs/week). The AIA Committee of the Environment and the Portland declaration do an excellent job emphasizing the importance of the issue while proposing specific revisions and suggestions. We should support these initiatives. Please post your comments to NAAB!

I'm keeping up the drumbeat for all to weigh in on the NAAB criteria. To that end, attached is COTE's response to this draft. Note that the link to Ned Cramer's excellent editorial includes links to the earlier COTE comments and the Portland Declaration. Now's the time to let NAAB leadership know that the education of future architects MUST address climate action clearly and with accountability. It needs to be a high priority, not just part of a list of topics to be covered. thanks. MAL Mary Ann Lazarus maryannlazarus2@gmail.com mobile: 314.805.9332