Introduction: Boundaries in Architectural Education

schools of architecture? At first glance it appears that students and faculty roam across vast territories of knowledge, often in an itinerant manner. General subjects such as design, history, theory, construction, and professional practice are dutifully examined, and often pulled apart. In the profession, on the other hand, architects and their firms are required to specialize, to narrow their scope, and define the limits of their expertise. Further, professional practice is highly regulated, and those architects operating at the edges of conventional practice often do so at their peril. Meanwhile, the profession has seen waves of attack into its traditional territories by a host of pretenders and opportunists. So it is evident that there is a mismatch between schools and practice, and this has long been considered a weakness in the discipline. Many argue that architecture should take back lost territories, or areas of practice, and that schools should more closely match the narrowness of practice. But is this the way out of the dilemma? Is it even a problem? As George Baird, writing some years ago, cogently suggests in his short essay “Notes on the Fate of the Architectural Profession in the PostStructuralist Era,” architecture as a discipline has always lacked clear boundaries like those found in law or medicine, and this explains in part incursions by other disciplines. Baird argues that, as the profession radically changes, it is better to develop a model of architecture without boundaries and not to defend traditional “turf.” In other words, the boundaryless qualities of the discipline can be turned into an asset. In a similar vein Askenas, Ulrich, Jick, and Kerr argue in their book The Boundaryless Organization that successful organizations (defined by speed, flexibility, integration, and innovation) create shifting and permeable boundaries that allow for connection and exchange. This argument affirms the notion that architectural education and practice should embrace a wide range of knowledge, skills, and experiences, and that collaborative and adaptable practices that use shifting and permeable boundary systems will thrive; in other words, generalism is an asset. In this non-themed issue of the Journal of Architectural Education the contributions explore both conventional and nonconventional topics, as they negotiate and define various boundary conditions. The issue begins with a tribute to Professor Marco Frascari, who recently passed; Paul Emmons remembers a widely loved and admired architect, teacher, writer, director, and gentleman. The article by Ahmed Zaib Khan, Han Vandevyvere, and Karen Allacker argues for the development of a coherent mechanism that can amalgamate various standards of sustainable architecture into a meta-framework that will close the gap between schools and the profession. Carey Clouse and Zachary Lamb examine the inadequate response provided by architects following hurricane Katrina that struck New Orleans in 2005. The authors argue that effective post-disaster engagement with communities requires the following skills: humility, respect, collaboration, and listening. Additionally, they advocate for collaborative approaches that break down boundaries between designers and communities. With respect to design education there are three articles examining different modes of studio teaching: Edward M. Baum outlines a studio devoted to teaching architectural fundamentals that he has developed in over three decades of teaching; Gabriel Kroiz studies a pedagogical framework developed for educating young African American architects at Morgan State University; Ceridwen Owen, Kim Dovey, and Wiryono Raharjo describe a studio that they have offered that explores informal settlements and contemporary gaming theory. Each in their own way examines boundary systems within design education, advocating on one hand for formal and repeated methods, and on the other for open and innovative processes. Notions of utopia are examined by Christoph Lueder in his article, which compares and contrasts the structure of the visionary communities of Utopia and Agronica. With regard to contemporary and future contexts for education and practice, Amy Murphy explores how our collective cultural anxieties regarding the future are played out in various scenarios in postapocalyptic films. In particular, Murphy examines our relationship to nature as depicted in these (mainly science fiction) films, and also in a series of recent public projects in central Los Angeles. Finally, Aseel Al-Ragam examines the successes and failures of the Al-Sawaber housing scheme in Kuwait designed by Arthur Erickson. This issue of the JAE features an expanded Design as Scholarship section, reflecting a number of new initiatives developed by the JAE Design Committee under the guidance of Amy Kulper, Associate Editor (Design). This includes the new “Design Frameworks” text, which outlines various contemporary design topics, a guest-curated section, and a new regular column entitled “Pre-Fabrications.” The design-focused submission by Penelope Dean has been selected for publication through the blind-peer review process. The last section of this issue features reviews of various recent publications and exhibitions, and was very ably organized by JAE editorial board members Michelangelo Sabatino, Kathrina Simonen, and John Stuart acting collectively as the Associate Editor (Reviews). In conclusion, if it is possible to cite the ethereal architecture of the Japanese duo of Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa (SANAA) as capturing many aspects of the boundaryless, their work could represent a contemporary paradigm. Luis Fernández-Galiano writes that their projects exist on the boundaries between realms, their buildings “strive to divest themselves of thickness, dispense with inertia, rid themselves of density” and “reside along the vague border between sleeping and waking.” This issue of the JAE describes, in its intentional diversity, the productive transgression of boundary systems that can found in projects, organizations, and on the ground.