The big lie of architectural education

Thoughts from Las Catalinas

Kevin’s note: This was a Twitter/X thread that went a bit viral last week. I thought I’d go ahead and type it up for this format as well.

Last week I had the opportunity to visit a bucket-list place of mine, Las Catalinas in Costa Rica. This new community was conceived by Charles Brewer and dates only to 2006 for the property acquisition. So in less than twenty years, his team has built what’s in the photos. Simply put, the community is gorgeous. It’s humane, being largely car-free. It’s kid-friendly. It’s beautifully integrated into the hilly landscape.

But mostly what was on my mind is what this place tells me about the six years of architecture school I had, way back when….

---

What most non-architects don’t understand, and would find crazy, is that architecture school is mostly an exercise in ideological indoctrination. Nearly every school in the US, and most in other countries, teaches an ideology that came out of the wreckage of WWI. It’s simply that we are in a new, modern era, and we can’t look to the past anymore. We just can’t build buildings like our ancestors, nor should we. That’s the sum and substance of school, along with the notion that every individual is his or her own creative genius. You think you’re going to school to learn how to make beautiful buildings, but you’re actually paying to become a cult member.

In architecture school, you literally get poor grades for drawing a well-executed, simple design based off of historic traditions that the majority of people would find lovely. No joke: I once listened to my professors critique a fellow student’s work that was nothing more than a single line on paper. So you also learn how to be an expert bullshitter.

The entire point of education at times appears to be creating bizarre self-referential work that only your fellow inmates can appreciate. It’s long been known there’s an enormous gulf between what architects like and what the public likes. So when you visit a new place designed on old principles, it’s like a glitch in the matrix. How is this possible? You mean we can build buildings and communities like this? This does not compute!

The New Urbanism gets more than its fair share of criticisms, and it’s ok, really. Bring it on. But at its core, it’s always been about just making more places that humans love, instead of so much mass-produced garbage of the last hundred years. Make no mistake, it’s really hard, and it’s expensive to do this. But if we had a few hundred developers doing it, instead of a handful, it would rapidly become more affordable and accessible. What I simply can’t tolerate anymore are the really dumb arguments that beauty doesn’t matter (too many YIMBYs), or it’s not possible (many developers), or blah blah blah “of our time.” (most architects). In the aftermath of many years now lived on the planet, it’s so clear to me that those are just ideologies meant to create conformity and ugliness, while degrading anything our ancestors built. Yes of course we must build with what we have. Yes it’s smart to use some of our modern materials and methods. But if it’s not in service of creating what Steve Mouzon calls “lovable places,” then what’s the point?

I look forward to having Charles Brewer on the Messy City podcast soon to talk about his experience building this incredible community and gift to humanity. These are just my gut reactions as an architect, I expect we will talk about his thoughts and the nuts and bolts. Stay tuned.