by Gordon S. Grice OAA, FRAIC If you want to live a long productive life, you should probably be an architect. Our research on this topic has been both conscientious and time-consuming, although not totally exhaustive and possibly relying on hearsay to a degree that proper scientists might not applaud. Nonetheless, the evidence in support of our thesis is overwhelming, although, yes, largely anecdotal and not entirely irrefutable. But we stand by the results. To begin with, technical research on the effects of aging on architects is not that easy to find. If you want information on “young” architects, it's everywhere.The youngsters, it seems, need the boost. Let's welcome them, empower them, give them the breaks we older architects never had. But consider this: a “younger” architect is one who is under the age of fifty. Doesn’t that tell you something? ITEM 1: In 2001, architect Harold Fisher, aged 100, of Grosse Pointe, Michigan was honored as one of America’s oldest workers. He works five days a week, six to eight hours a day, in his office in Harper Woods and keeps mind and body in shape by working out regularly. Fisher says he still wakes up every day with new ideas and that even after eighty-five years in the business, he’s still learning. One of his favorite lines is:“People who retire early die early.” ITEM 2: This year’s prestigious Pritzker Prize went to Danish architect Jørn Utzon, aged eighty-five. Admittedly, the Prize honours a body of work, so advanced age is probably an asset, however, the years need to be spent productively.The average age of all Pritzker winners since its inception twenty-five years ago is just under sixty-four years, including youngsters Richard Meier (forty-nine, in 1984), Christian de Portzamparc (fifty, in 1994) and Jacques Hertzog and Pierre de Meuron (both fifty-one, in 2001).The great majority of these winners continue to practice. ITEM 3: In a January, 2001 feature entitled “9 over 90”, Metropolis magazine discussed the lives of nine designers who were in their nineties and still active. Of these, three were architects: Philip Johnson, now ninety-eight, Nathan Juran, now ninety-six, who has returned to his architectural career after a forty-year hiatus, and the late Morris Lapidus who passed away at ninety-eight, shortly after the magazine appeared. A fourth subject, Julius Schulman, now ninety-three, has spent a distinguished career as an architectural photographer. The feature writer Karen Steen pointed out that if they had included two other candidates, Charles Peterson and Oscar Niemeyer, it would have tipped the focus unfairly towards architects. In his introduction to the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects — MEA — (4 vol, London: Collier Macmillan, 1982), esteemed editor Adolf K. Placzek offers his own opinion regarding architects’ longevity. “Unlike so many of the great poets and musicians, great architects are a peculiarly long-lived lot.They are tough. Dealing with material, structure, and society's demands, they have always had to be. Among the encyclopedia’s twenty most outstanding architects, only two — Raphael and H. H. Richardson — died before they were fifty, and several did some of their finest work after they were seventy.Thus for the young architects not included in the encyclopedia, a long and successful future may be anticipated and with the assured inclusion in any new edition.”, p. xii As we will see, Placzek himself, eminent historian that he was, may also have been working from anecdotal evidence rather than hard statistical research, but let's humour him for the time being. Do architects really live and work longer than most other people? If so, why? It may help to offer a few examples of actual research regarding the effects of advancing age on architectural practice. 10 Perspectives/Spring 2004 Improving with age-part 1 Moses by Michelangelo, 1515. Both men lived very long productive lives – the biblical law-giver to 120 (unconfirmed), the architect to 89.
Transcript
by Gordon S. Grice OAA, FRAIC
If you want to live a long productive life,you should probably be an architect.
Our research on this topic has been both conscientiousand time-consuming, although not totally exhaustiveand possibly relying on hearsay to a degree that properscientists might not applaud. Nonetheless, the evidencein support of our thesis is overwhelming, although, yes,largely anecdotal and not entirely irrefutable.
But we stand by the results.To begin with, technical research on the effects of
aging on architects is not that easy to find. If you wantinformation on “young” architects, it's everywhere.Theyoungsters, it seems, need the boost. Let's welcomethem, empower them, give them the breaks we olderarchitects never had. But consider this: a “younger”architect is one who is under the age of fifty. Doesn’tthat tell you something?
ITEM 1: In 2001, architect Harold Fisher, aged 100,of Grosse Pointe, Michigan was honored as one ofAmerica’s oldest workers. He works five days a week,six to eight hours a day, in his office in Harper Woodsand keeps mind and body in shape by working out regularly.
Fisher says he still wakes up every day with newideas and that even after eighty-five years in the business, he’s still learning. One of his favorite lines is: “People who retire early die early.”
ITEM 2: This year’s prestigious Pritzker Prize went to Danish architect Jørn Utzon, aged eighty-five.Admittedly, the Prize honours a body of work, soadvanced age is probably an asset, however, the yearsneed to be spent productively.The average age of allPritzker winners since its inception twenty-five yearsago is just under sixty-four years, including youngstersRichard Meier (forty-nine, in 1984), Christian dePortzamparc (fifty, in 1994) and Jacques Hertzog andPierre de Meuron (both fifty-one, in 2001).The greatmajority of these winners continue to practice.
ITEM 3: In a January, 2001 feature entitled “9 over 90”,Metropolis magazine discussed the lives of nine designerswho were in their nineties and still active. Of these,three were architects: Philip Johnson, now ninety-eight,Nathan Juran, now ninety-six, who has returned to hisarchitectural career after a forty-year hiatus, and thelate Morris Lapidus who passed away at ninety-eight,shortly after the magazine appeared. A fourth subject,Julius Schulman, now ninety-three, has spent a distinguished career as an architectural photographer.The feature writer Karen Steen pointed out that if theyhad included two other candidates, Charles Petersonand Oscar Niemeyer, it would have tipped the focusunfairly towards architects.
In his introduction to the Macmillan Encyclopedia ofArchitects — MEA — (4 vol, London: CollierMacmillan, 1982), esteemed editor Adolf K. Placzekoffers his own opinion regarding architects’ longevity.
“Unlike so many of the great poets and musicians,great architects are a peculiarly long-lived lot.They are tough. Dealing with material, structure, and society's demands, they have always had to be.Among the encyclopedia’s twenty most outstanding architects, only two — Raphael and H. H. Richardson— died before they were fifty, and several did some of their finest work after they were seventy.Thus for the young architects not included in the encyclopedia, a long and successful future may be anticipated and with the assured inclusion in any newedition.”, p. xii
As we will see, Placzek himself, eminent historian thathe was, may also have been working from anecdotalevidence rather than hard statistical research, but let'shumour him for the time being.
Do architects really live and work longer than mostother people? If so, why? It may help to offer a fewexamples of actual research regarding the effects ofadvancing age on architectural practice.
10
Pe
rs
pe
ct
ive
s/
Sp
rin
g
20
04
Impr
ovin
g w
ith a
ge-p
art 1
Moses by Michelangelo, 1515.
Both men lived ver y long productive
lives – the biblical law-giver to 120
(unconfirmed), the architect to 89.
11
Pe
rs
pe
ct
ive
s/
Sp
rin
g
20
04
1.The Economics of Has-Beens1
The title of this study is compelling. It deals with theeffects of technological development on older workers,for whom updating is uneconomical.The study statesthat “Architecture displays the sort of features the theory identifies as magnifying the has-beens effect, andboth anecdotes and some data suggest the has-beenseffect in architecture is extreme indeed.”
The net effect of the “has-beens effect” is that oldermembers of the profession, surrender some of theadvantages that experience bestows.This occursbecause they are slower to embrace the new digitaltechnologies that are becoming more and more criticalto the practice of architecture. Meanwhile younger professionals quickly acquire proficiency with technological advances, making them more efficient and, in that respect, more valuable. Whenever greatertechnological expertise translates to higher salaries, youmay find that, in a nutshell, architects may not retireearly because they can’t afford to.
2. Spacing Out: Effects of age and naturally occurringexperience on spatial visualization performance2
In this report, a number of studies dealing with declinesin spatial perception were summarized. Architects wereselected as a prime study group due to the apparentimportance of spatial perception in their professionalactivities.
The studies showed that spatial visualization doesindeed decline with age, whether you are an architector not and that architects at any age outperformednon-architects. No surprise. But the decline may notmatter that much to architects since spatial visualizationmay not be as important an asset to older more experienced architects as it is to younger practitioners.
“Does age have effects on spatial visualization abilityafter controlling for experience?” the authors wonder,“Or does the effect of age on spatial visualization performance depend on level of experience, such thatpeople with more experience show less decline?”
Another question that the authors raise is: “Do architecture programs place more emphasis on spatialabilities than in the past?”This could be one explanationfor the fact that younger architects may outperformolder architects. Salthouse et al. argue that this interpretation seems unlikely given that similar agetrends were found for unselected adults.
As an architect, it is flattering to be considered aparagon in the area of spatial visualization. Here perhaps is the core skill of architecture. But whatimportance does this skill have to an aging architect'susefulness? The experimenters discuss the mitigatingeffects of experience, as we will see in the followingstudy, but the experience referred to is in the area relevant to the study. What about the hundreds ofother skills that comprise architectural practice?
3. Practice Makes More Perfect:Age-Related Differencesin Skilled Performance and Skill Acquisition3
It's called professional practice for a reason.Earlier studies showing no age-related declines in theperformance of tasks fail to factor in the effects of
practice — cognitive skills may decline, but increasedexperience compensates.
The study suggests that through practice, the effectsof diminished cognitive and motor skills can be offset byincreased proficiency at the tasks under consideration.In the case of architects, the ability identified for studywas spatial visualization, this skill having been identifiedby the architectural subjects themselves as “highly relevant to their occupational activities” (see above).The study found that a decline in this skill among architects did occur but it was consistent with a similardecline among non-architects. Because the architectsstarted at a higher level than the general population,they finished ahead as well.
The study appears to suggest that aging architectsought to step aside in favour of their more astuteyounger colleagues. But the study also indicates a phenomenon called “accommodation perspective”,according to which, “within their domain of expertise,older adults have learned to identify the conditions underwhich their performance is adversely affected by age-related declines, and to selectively avoid these conditions.”In other words, if you don’t do it well, don’t do it.
Clearly, older architects both compensate and applypracticed skills to minimize the differences betweentheir performance and that of younger practitioners.But does this nugget of wisdom only come with age?Well, maybe yes. If you stop to think about it, one ofthe annoyingly persistent qualities of brash youth is that it confers a degree of “I can do anything”. With advancing age comes the realization that this attitudeleads to behaviour that is uneconomical.This is wherearchitecture fits into the puzzle. One recurring themeof architectural mentality is that architects can doalmost anything. Again, the evidence is suspect andanecdotal, but it is a persistent myth (q.v., PerspectivesFall, 2001) and one widely held by architects themselves. Could this element of deferred youth beresponsible for architectural longevity? Where is the research?
1. The Economics of has-beens, forthcoming, Journal of Political Economy,
Glenn MacDonald, Olin School of Business, Washington University, St.
Louis, Michael Weisbach, College of Business, Universtiy of Illinois and
3. ”Age-Related Differences in Skilled Performance and Skill Acquisition",
Elizabeth A. Bosman, University of Toronto; Neil Charness, Florida State
University (Preprint of Bosman, E. A. & Charness, N. (1996). Age
differences in skilled performance and skill acquisition. In T. Hess & F.
Blanchard-Fields (Eds.) Perspectives on cognitive change in adulthood
and aging (pp. 428-453). New York: McGraw-Hill.)
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~charness/preprints/bosch96/, December 9, 2003
Gordon S. Grice is editor of Perspectives
AN INTERVIEW WITH JACK DIAMONDby Inès Marchese
Perspectives: What do think of today’s process of becoming an architect? There’s school, internship, exams and after all of that there is ConEd. How does it compare to your own experience?
Jack Diamond: I graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a Master's degree in 1962. I did what was then the registration course. I find it appropriate that there are courses to equip you to practice as they did not equip me. Schools of architecture are supposed to educate you, not train you professionally — something I agree with.Professional training is different.Training, no matter how comprehensive, can be obsolete as technology and regulations change but education allows you to continue to learn, to change or to create.That distinction between the two is an important one.
The current ConEd is very poor as there is little distinction made, for example, between a highly experienced practitioner and a novice.There isn't enough content to advance the education of such vastly different members. I'm interested in continuing my education all the time. Continuing education is a good idea—no question about that.Whether it shouldbe mandatory is debatable. People who want to genuinely learn and continue to improve their own knowledge will expand their minds.Those who are content to do what they've always done will providethe same level of service despite ConEd participation.Besides, being a professional means that there is an ethical or moral dimension that distinguishes us fromthe narrower objectives of business.
Perspectives: What is your connection to the community?
Jack Diamond: Architecture is acutely affected by and affects the quality of life. Our every act of building has an effect. As such, architects should be actively engaged in the community, particularly any aspect of political and social life that affects the physical environment — which is what we're all about. We should be engaged, firstly, because we have a lot to offer and secondly, we have a lot to gain.Those who see their practice in the narrow confines of simply being producers of drawings are limiting themselves to a degree that harms themselves and the community.
Perspectives: Since you started your practice, has the role of the architect shifted or changed?
Jack Diamond: Not really, although it is difficult to generalize in this respect. Architecture is practiced with many different perspectives.There is the very traditional practice, the general practice and even the specialized practice.There are those who see practice as a business enterprise or merely as a service to their clients without any shifts in the statusquo. Our interest lies in innovation, thinking the problem through as a creative effort. If you broaden the question to ask what is the role of the architect in society, it has shifted somewhat. Architecture now
is the latest fad among the cognoscenti. It is at once wonderful and dangerous. Dangerous because architecture becomes a form of branding — the use of iconic or trophy architecture. It becomes a status symbol with fifteen minutes of fame. Its merit over the long term or as a contextual contribution is questionable in that regard.
Perspectives: What is the effect of changing technologies on your practice over the years?
Jack Diamond: In many respects, as far as building technology is concerned, it is too easy.You can do anything — but whether it is the right thing to do or not still needs to be carefully considered.The technology of production, construction and process is all much more organized. As a consequence we generally have a much higher standard. Mostly it produces a higher standard of mediocrity, which is not such a bad thing. Our powers have increased commensurate with the rest of society. We can accomplish a great deal more in the office today thanwe could ten or fifteen years ago. Whether high-techor low-tech, we exploit technology in the best possible way.
Perspectives: What about the tension between traditionalarchitectural drawing and computer drawing?
Jack Diamond: One of our best draughtsmen, George Przybylski, had an incredible eye and sense of composition inherent in his drafting skill, whether by hand or by computer, although the results were slightly different. If you're referring to design, not production, that is a different matter.There is no faster more efficient tool than sketching. Sketching anidea, a parti, is an important way to see things.Architects have an amazing short hand. It's an extraordinary economy when a parti can represent structure — columns or solid wall, spatial configuration, solid and void, even texture or plainness. When you sketch, as I am doing now . . . it represents a huge amount to me as an architect — itmay not to a layperson — but it's evocative. In a sketch plan or section, you see possibilities.The freehand sketch is an extraordinarily responsive and sensitive tool in its depth and breadth. It's only abouttalent and your own sensitivity to what you are producing. In my view, nothing can replace that. Nowthere will be people whose capabilities as such can sketch on computer in a responsive, loose and swift manner but I haven't seen that yet. From sketches, a team can develop design intentions. I don't see a substitute to sketching for representing a notion of architecture that can be developed into architecture.A sketch is an incredibly intense yet economic tool.
Perspectives: Sometimes technology can weigh you down?
Jack Diamond: Take soccer for example, it is such a universal sport. All you need is something that resembles a ball and something to mark the goal posts.You can kick barefoot. It's a sport that is accessible to everyone. A pencil and paper is accessible to almost everyone. Skills develop from these simple tools.
12
Pe
rs
pe
ct
ive
s/
Sp
rin
g
20
04
13
Pe
rs
pe
ct
ive
s/
Sp
rin
g
20
04
Perspectives: Has your practice changed over the years?
Jack Diamond: Yes, when I started out as a sole practitioner in 1965, I had to do everything.There’s asatisfaction in that but also a distraction. Even when I had a few employees and could afford a secretary,I still did everything. When the firm was at 30 or 40 staff, I was still involved in every aspect but the firm didn't have the heft for certain kinds of help. I don't mean specialization. We, in this office, don't believe inrigid specialization of tasks for architects — we like whole people. What we can now afford is a full time librarian, a network technologist, marketing and accounts people.They are huge aids to the practice.Without the size of the firm or the magnitude of theprojects we undertake, we couldn't do it. We also couldn't undertake such complex projects without those aids.
What I'm proudest of is that at each capacity of the firm, a sufficient change in degree has made a change in kind.The firm worked well at a small scale because we had an infrastructure suited to that size. We've shifted from sole practitioner, to associates, then to a partnership in 1975 with Don [Schmitt] and now to a group of principals. I used to be involved in every aspect of the firm from project management to human resources. Now, we have a structure appropriate to the scale of our operation.With this in mind, it is always in the service of better design—better architecture.The office has improved significantly. It has maintained itsresponsiveness and improved the quality of production and design. I’m very proud that people want to make a contribution. When there were only a few of us it was easier for everyone to contribute.As the office grew, I had to find devices to ensure everyone's participation at office meetings.Otherwise juniors would stay silent and shy people wouldn’t speak.
Perspectives: What do you consider your greatest contribution? Or does it lie ahead?
Jack Diamond: It's a continuing drive, although others will judge. One distinction is to see to it that there is a social and ethical dimension to the work.To view the work in the larger social, political and economic dimension — the contextual question — is key. Another distinction: many successful architects become less and less engaged in the design work and more involved in management or client relations.I haven't worked this long and hard to give up my real joy, design.
Jack Diamond is a partner in Diamond and Schmitt Architects, Toronto He is the recipient of numerous design awards, including six Governor General's Awards, a Toronto Arts Award for Architecture, and an RAIC Gold Medal. He is a Fellow of the TSA, RAIC and the AIA and, since 1996, an Officer of the Order of Canada.
Inès Marchese is an architect with Diamond and Schmitt Architects
Jack Diamond. photo: James Allen
Insets – UBC Life Sciences. Images: DSAI
AN INTERVIEW WITH NORM MACDONALD AND MIKE ZUBERECby Gordon S. Grice OAA, FRAIC
Norm Macdonald is seventy-five and Mike Zuberec is seventy-two. Both graduates of St. CatharinesCollegiate and of the University of Toronto School of Architecture, they came together in 1957 as staff members of the long-established St. Catharines Thomas R. Wiley architectural firm.
A young Norm and Mike purchased a reducedWiley practice on Mr. Wiley's premature death in 1959and after some years of achieving credibility,redeveloped it into an established firm in its own right.
Harald Ensslen (U of T 1973) left the Toronto
Barrett Ensslen Allen practice in 1998 to join Normand Mike in the current Macdonald Zuberec EnsslenArchitects Inc. practice and has been instrumental in developing the firm's current graphic and visual computer expertise.
What keeps you going?For Norm, this question has many answers. First,there is a passion for both the work and the officeenvironment.There is an office camaraderie that Normenjoys and would greatly miss if he were not active inthe firm. Being part of an ongoing practice, there is acontinuity that keeps him engaged — personally andprofessionally. Over forty-five years of sharing practice,Norm and Mike have developed great mutual respect.They have “similar ideas”, but different approaches. Both
14
Pe
rs
pe
ct
ive
s/
Sp
rin
g
20
04
Mike Zuberec (l.) and Norm Macdonald. Photo: MZE
Insets – top to bottom: Rainbow Bridge Customs/
Immigration Inter ior ; Apartment (Les Aines);
St. Catharines Market Hall Inter ior ; St. Catharines
Market Hall Exter ior. All photos: MZE
are long-time bow-tie wearers and can often be seenaround town together, where some refer to them affectionately as Mutt and Jeff ”*
When asked what keeps him coming into theoffice, Mike says facetiously that it can be much moreinteresting to fight with people who are not in yourimmediate family. Mike still retains a drawing board,while Norm (according to Mike, “a squirrel for information”) deals with administrative and other non-visual matters.
How do you manage to “keep up”? Norm is glad to be mentally alert and physically active.Although age may slow the recall process, there ismuch more pertinent information to recall. Experienceis a key. Architects need to be both systematic and
imaginative.This means taking advantage of the repetitive component and plugging in the creative component (a bit like a computer programme).
Mike agrees: “Maybe your wheels don’t spin asquickly, but you have a lot of experience. . . . It helps ifyou maintain a youthful mind." Also, it's important tokeep up with advances, especially in your area of expertise, which for Mike is the complex technology of building materials.
How do you feel about rapidly advancing technology?Are you digital?And speaking of technology, the profession appears tobe divided between those, mostly older practitioners,who can't deal with AutoCad and all the rest whocouldn't be employed without it.
Norm is reasonably computer-literate on e-mailand word processing and has a computer in his officeand at home. He is not AutoCad-literate but feels comfortable discussing computer hardware and software and participating in the firm’s decisions regarding them. He feels that computers simplify life in some ways, but complicate it in others. “Computertechnology offers possibilities beyond what most of uswill ever use. It can complicate everyday tasks.”Mike says that he is comfortable with word processing,but relies on “young Turks” for complicated computerapplications. He is aware that digital literacy is becoming increasingly essential and is planning toupgrade his skills.
What are your views on ConEd?Norm answered this question by indicating that continuous learning keeps a mind young. He went onto categorize the OAA ConEd programme as essential not only in its own right, but also for the betterment of the profession.
Will you ever retire?Mike: “Maybe someday if I become a menace. . . . [but] I will probably just slow down.”Norm: “If I had retired at 65, I would have missed thebest part of the Rainbow Bridge project, which I wascaptaining . . . and I would have died of frustration”Although a “a degree of procrastination” has slowedthe process, he is now working a shorter week as aprelude to further retirement and spending more time on architectural/historical side-interests.
*Mutt and Jeff was the world's first daily comic strip, introduced in 1907and drawn by Bud Fisher ; Mutt and Jeff both wore bowties; Jeff is the short one in top hat and tails. When the comicstrip was more popularly known, it was not uncommon forfriends who kept constant company to be referred to as Muttand Jeff.
Norm MacDonald and Mike Zuberec are principals of Macdonald Zuberec Ensselen Architects Inc.in St. Catharines.
15
Pe
rs
pe
ct
ive
s/
Sp
rin
g
20
04
16
AN INTERVIEW WITH NORM CRITCHLEYAND LUCIEN DELEANby Debbie Friesen OAA
With such an abundance of baby boomers reachingschool age, the timing probably couldn’t have been better for Norm Critchley to open his architecturalpractice in North Bay in 1955.The demand for newschools was so high, I recall Norm saying once that ifyou could hold a pencil you had all the work you couldhandle. Lucien Delean joined the practice the followingyear and forty-eight years later they are still partners,still have plenty of work and at seventy-four and seventy-three years of age respectively, have no plansto slow down. In fact, they are working on their biggestproject ever, a $200 million new hospital for North Baywhich will replace the two existing general hospitalsand the psychiatric hospital.
The practice flourished and grew, adding PaulTrussler, in the late 1950s and Jim Evans in the late1960s.Young blood was added in the 1990s in the formof Brian Bertrand to complete the firm's current incarnation as Critchley Delean Trussler Evans BertrandInc.The firm employs fifteen or sixteen people full timeand some additional part-time staff.One might think the senior partners in the firm haveearned the right to choose the tasks they take on anddelegate those they find less enjoyable. But that is notCritchley and Delean’s way.They attribute much of thefirm’s success to the fact that everyone “pulls their ownweight” and the partners are involved in every aspectof the practice and in all of the projects, whether assmall as a kitchen renovation or as large as a hospital.Their clients appreciate their personal involvement andthis leads to many repeat clients. Besides, they enjoy all aspects of the work and that is why they are stilldoing it.
The key to this enjoyment, I think, is that to NormCritchley and Lucien Delean, architecture is, above all,an art.To “work till you drop” is, says Lucien, commonin the arts in general. With all the complaining fromarchitects about the profession, it might be surprising tohear Norm use the word “fun” to describe the work.Perhaps this comes from Norm and Lucien's apparent
ability to always keep sight of what is important andwhat is, in a word Norm likes to use, inconsequential.They don’t sweat the small stuff and they still get a kickout of the big stuff. If you are interested in what youare doing, Norm says, it is still fun, even after so manyyears, to be productive. And if you are busy and productive, you feel better.Those who retire early, hecontinues, maybe didn't like what they were doing —and they probably have a pension plan.
“Like any art form,” Norm and Lucien agree,design skills don't diminish as one gets older. Just asmany musicians continue to perform until a ripe oldage, architects too want to continue to practice theirart. Lucien points out that Frank Lloyd Wright designedFallingwater when he was 72 and worked until he was92. When asked if their skills have improved over theyears, Norm modestly replies that “we’re the last guysto ask,” but Lucien emphatically answers, “Yes, at everylevel.”Their management skills in particular haveimproved with experience.They don’t feel left behindin any way by new technology, handling it in the sameway as anybody — reading up on it and using expertconsultants where necessary.They do try to avoidmaterials that are the “fashion of the day”, partlybecause they have experienced problems in the pastwith certain new materials such as roof insulation.
Pe
rs
pe
ct
ive
s/
Sp
rin
g
20
04
Norm Critchley. Photo: Ed Eng. Insets, top to bottom:Canadore College, North Bay. Photo: Mark Critchley.Harbourside Condominiums, North Bay. Photo: Mark Critchley.Manitouwadge High Schoo.l Photo: Norm Critchley.
17
So they are cautious about introducing new materials,but are by no means resistant to new concepts withproper research.The newest challenge they have facedis the green building trend and they have recently donea number of large buildings with heat pumps.
As for computers, according to Norm “they are alot slower than hand drawing — and a lot more costly— but they are mandatory”.The two partners usecomputers for some personal matters and concedethat they can be useful tools, but they still do all oftheir design and drawing by hand. It helps that theyhave experienced staff that understand what they are looking for to produce the required computerdrawings.They seem to experience more frustrationfrom the computerization of contract administrationdocuments than of drawings, probably because theyhave always had a very hands-on approach to contractadministration.They are intrigued, though, with whatcomputers can do in terms of analysis of buildings,particularly in the green building field, as for examplewith CBIP (Commercial Building Incentive Program).
One aspect of their practice that has becomemore of a burden as they get older is travel. With projects spread out all over northern Ontario, they areused to traveling thousands of miles a year. Lucien sayshe just doesn’t look forward anymore to driving 400miles to Hearst. (Who would?)
There are some trends in the construction industry which concern Critchley and Delean.These are things that I think bug all of us. Contractors tend to be more difficult to work with than they used to be.As Norm puts it, “Everybody has a lawyer looking for a fight. . . It isn’t a pleasant way to do business.”Government clients are also much more demandingthan they used to be, with “104 experts”on staff tryingto tell you what to do. “Years ago, someone wrote aprogram and away you went.”The other disappointingtrend is in how architects get selected. It used to bethat you got hired because of what you could do. Nowit is all based on fee. “You can write proposals until youare blue in the face,” says Norm but, Lucien continues,“managers seem to find it difficult to justify going toanyone but the lowest bidder.”
They believe that Continuing Education is probablynecessary to preserve self-regulation, but they are notimpressed by the selection of courses that have beenoffered so far. Norm was particularly annoyed by aseminar last spring in which four lawyers attempted toconvince architects that they had to have a lawyer onstaff.
Norm and Lucien feel that in the area of community involvement, youthful energy is a definiteadvantage. In the past Norm sat on the OAA counciland was active in the local Chamber of Commerce,but now focuses on his other artistic passion — music,specifically playing the violin. Lucien has been majorforce in the North Bay arts community, in particularthe conversion of the old Capitol movie theatre to theNorth Bay Arts Centre, opening in 1987. He is muchless active now, but still gets involved in fundraising forthe arts.
Such is their devotion to the arts that if architectural commissions dried up in the north, both
would simply turn to other artistic endeavours —Lucien to painting, Norm to his fiddle. But that doesn’tseem likely to happen anytime soon. With a well established client base and the new North Bay hospital,the future looks good for the firm, even though theeconomic future of the north in general is less certain.The concept of combining a psychiatric facility with aregional hospital is unique and has generated international interest. With projects like this,architecture for Norm Critchley and Lucien Delean isas exciting as ever. As long as there is work and theyare feeling well, they will keep working. After all, Luciensays, he is still looking for his Fallingwater.
Norm Critchley and Lucien Delean are principals of Critchley Delean Trussler Evans Bertrand Architects in North Bay, Ontario.
Debbie Friesen is an architect with O.C.A. Architects in Toronto, whose very first mentors were the folks at Critchley Delean Trussler Evans Bertrand. P
er
sp
ec
tiv
es
/S
pr
ing
2
00
4
Lucien Delean. Photo: Ed Eng.Insets, top to bottom: North Bay Regional Health
Centre. Model: Rob Burns. Ontario Northland Transportation Commission Terminal, North Bay. Photo: Mark Critchley
AN INTERVIEW WITH ROD ROBBIEby Sheena Sharp OAA
Rod Robbie turned 75 last year. He has had a distinguished career (see Order of da Vinci, PerspectivesSummer, 2003, p. 31) and has a string of interestingprojects to his credit, including the Canadian pavilion at Expo ‘67, the Sky Dome, and a host of elementaryschools. He has practised on two continents andworked on projects around the world.
Perspectives: Some architects are active and especially productive in their seventies, eighties and nineties . . . .
Rod Robbie: Well, I don't think any of them are especially productive, but they put on a good act.They know a lot of tricks by then. I have known a number of them, including Frank Lloyd Wright and Johnson. By that time they usually have very capable partners, associates, or just a kind of climate behind them, so they are being treated with consideration.Generally speaking, I think their productivity is an
extension of what they were doing before. If they were good at what they were doing, they just stayed the same.They don't get any better, and probably don’t get any worse.
There are things about being old, and there is no getting around it. When you get to seventy you are old, and to pretend otherwise you are kidding yourself.Your health deteriorates and even if you havebeen fortunate in being served up a reasonably goodphysique, you start to forget things.You can exercise the brain by using it. If you don't use it you lose it.
Most people, the day they retire, they sign their own death warrant. I have no question about that.The worst thing in the world to do is to retire. Even if your physical and mental capabilities are twenty-fiveper cent of what they were, you should still try and use whatever is left. Probably one of the most important parts of being a practicing architect when you are older, is to do it.You simply have to do it.
Perspectives: Do you find people start cutting you a lot ofslack?
18
Pe
rs
pe
ct
ive
s/
Sp
rin
g
20
04
Rod Robbie. Photo: Lynn SnowdonInsets: Beijing 2008 Olympic Stadium, designed by Rod Robbie with Mike Allen,RAN International Architects & Engineers. Section shows SkyDome in red,to the same scale. Computer images: Jaan Lepp. Comparative section:Mark Sider & David Butterworth / Eric Anderson, Steve Nightingale et al.
Rod Robbie: You should manage to convince them that you shouldn’t be cut any slack and you are just a more beaten-up version of what you used to be, butyou are not on the slag heap, you have still got sharpteeth and can be nasty.That is really very important,in other words whatever you do should be of some value to someone.
Perspectives: Earlier we discussed the idea that our society loses a lot by picking an arbitrary age and removing older people from the work force . . . .
Rod Robbie: It's one of the biggest fallacies about modern life, which in traditional peasant societies didn’t happen because they had no choice. In our society we built a whole set of safety nets which are very much aimed toward helping the elderly. Now,some elderly must have it because they either are ill or have been injured, their working life has been abominable, but architects generally have a very soft life. So the rules for contributing should apply to the elderly as applied to everybody else, and that bears on another question: ConEd.
Any old architect who wants to go on being an architect should be doing ConEd. What the hell is the difference? You know, I talked to my daughter who is a high-end medical practitioner, about something that happened to a medical professor at the University of Toronto. She said, “Would you want this guy working on you if he wasn’t up to date, and he was a cardiac physician?” And I said, put that way you are dead right. She said if you are a licensed medical practitioner you are supposed to be able to do it. If you are a licensed architectural practitioner youare supposed to be able to do it.Therefore, ConEd rules apply to everybody, whether you are two yearsold or 200 years old.You can’t plead no contest.
Perspectives: Some more experienced architects say that they find it difficult to find relevant courses because the OAA are often offering elementary courses in liability ormarketing or something that hasn't really changed . . . .
Rod Robbie: I’m impressed that they know this stuff. I know the stuff on the Building Code. Now granted,you may say that you have been sitting on the oars and you have too many partners taking the weight for you, which is true, but the fact is that there are whole chunks on the building code which we all haveto examine, that’s good for me. I'm better for it, so I have no problem.
You know there is a lot of environmental stuff. I was again heavily involved in the origins of that, but I don’t know sweet FA about this. It’s not so much it has changed, it’s that people have gone into the things that we started years ago, and they’ve evolvedit, and they’ve done good things to it. People have triedthings and they don’t work. I like to know about that.
If I want to purport to be an expert architect and some client comes along, spends an astronomical amount of money on a building that I helped consult on, I want to give this guy or these people, really good sound professional advice, and I think that if
you are going to do that, you’d better be as good as its possible to be, because the other responsibility you have when you are seventy, eighty or ninety,you’d better be better than anyone else, otherwise what the hell have you been doing?
Perspectives: The key to enjoying life is that you have afull life?
Rod Robbie: Yeah, but it’s the key to being . . . how do I put this ? I do have value. Other people tell me I have value because they want me to do things,criticize things, and so your professional life goes up a kind of curve and then it starts to go down, and I think you go over this hump.You reach your zenith when you are in your fifties and sixties and then you start in late sixties to trail off. Simply because you cannot keep up the pace. I pushed it about as far as possible because I was sixty in 1988, which was the grim year of SkyDome.That year in a two-week period I did 100 hours work in one week, and 110 hours in the following week. Now that is physically suicidal even for people twenty-five years of age.From then on I started to adjust what I did. I still spend enormous amounts of time trying to promotework, sitting on airplanes flying around the world,which is taxing when you are in your seventies.However, for me it isn't the same as being on the mark for a site meeting, where you are going to be battling this person, which I seriously detest, and you just want to strangle them.The pressure is taken away, so it’s very important if you are going to continue on, you have to continue on in your context, but you have to downgrade it.You have to say, OK I’ll take less money, I don't want all of the responsibility, but I can be useful, I have a huge amount of experience.
Perspectives: Do you have any advice for younger architects?
Rod Robbie: You do a whole bunch of things when you are an employee, and if you're single practitioner, yougo out and get work, you do the work, you answer the telephone, you send bills, you sweep the floor.What is it you do first? You’d better get an idea pretty quickly.This is part of the discipline and the order of doing what we have to do.You are never going to be properly paid for what you do, you are never going to get properly appreciated for what you do. But you mustn’t say “This is not fair, I think I deserved better treatment than this”.The fact is that architecture is what it is and the reward is that thosethings will sit there long after you are dead.
Rod Robbie, in addition to his Order of da Vinci, is a recent recipient of the Order of Canada. He is currently a partner in two local firms (Robbie Sane Architects andRobbie/Young & Wright Architects Inc.)
Sheena Sharp is a sole practitioner specializing in architectural programming and retail work under the banner of Sharp Architects.
19
Pe
rs
pe
ct
ive
s/
Sp
rin
g
20
04
AN INTERVIEW WITH JOHN SHAWby Barbara Ross OAA
“Oh, gosh yes”, replies John, to the request that wemight publish his age. But I am impressed that he is not sure he is quite old enough, yet, at only 72, to be included in the “past normal retirement” group.
John’s abundant sense of humour and camaraderieare always evident — especially on the curling rink,where he and his wife Sheila have been hosting ouroffice Christmas party for the last several years.Although an accomplished competitor, he seeks outevery chance he can to coach and encourage.Thereare those who are perplexed by the rules of scoring,which he patiently explains (yet again), and there arethose who are caught idle, leaning on their brooms,whom he reminds to “get back in the game”. And thisspirit transfers to John’s role in our practice, where heremains active and connected.
He says “It’s so important — it's absolutely essential — to make sure a practice includes a range ofcomplementary talents, and, almost more-so,” leaningforward emphatically, “that the individual partners areable to recognize and benefit from each other’s talents.” John has had, over his 42 years of practice,interesting collaborations with an array of challengingpersonalities. And some were, in his words “exceptionaldesign talents who had difficulty relating to other people”. John found he could collaborate because helearned early he had an ability to get along with peopleand he could help present the work of others, as the“recognizable face” of the office.
“We tried to foster an atmosphere in which ‘we’ isinterchangeable with ‘I’,” he says. John has always derivedenormous satisfaction from direct contact with clients— all of whom had unique goals for themselves — andfrom the long-term relationships with clients whoreturned for several projects, and who became friends.Now he is hoping to help the next generation experience the satisfaction he experienced, and ispleased when he sees younger people in the officewho enjoy stretching and growing into more responsible roles. He continues his influence makingsure, with firm words if absolutely necessary, that particular elements of his style and habit are adopted— most important of all, listening carefully and trulyunderstanding the client’s goals.
In some cases, “stretching and growing” has notresulted in continuing in our practice, but moving on to a new practice.The list of former members of thefirm, who moved away to work in separate practicesincludes Bill Grierson, Gren Weis, Doug Snyder, PhilBrooke, Norm Grey-Noble,Tom Moore, Gaye Kapkin,Richard Gradon, Laird Robertson, Jan Ravens, RuthElder and Jean Larocque. John considers this list a sortof Carruthers Shaw “extended family” with a glow ofpride which might seem, to some, at odds with thecompetitive nature of our profession.“I loved working with those people,” he says, “And I amalso extremely proud of the many others who havegone away for a short while and then have come back.”In this, too, it is the relationships that have mattered.
The most flattering comment John remembers everreceiving from a client, came from a Northern Ontario
school board representative, who said to him, “You don’tseem like somebody from Toronto”. John reflects, “Theclient group in Central Algoma showed confidence inwhat their architects were doing, were appreciative ofthe advice that was given — we were treated as pro-fessionals, yes, but I also was welcomed as a friend.”
Asked about “un-improvements” affecting the profession since he started, John bemoans the growthin bureaucracy, and the dissipation of responsibility(more frequent now, on the client side). “There seemto be fewer occasions to get clients away from pushingpaper to go out and look at the world, to learn whatothers are doing.”This is further reflected in the loss of asense of ownership on the client side and a diminishingpotential for pride in the work of consulting architects.
This Fellow of the RAIC, and da Vinci medalist, hasnot found the OAA’s Continuing Education program tobe a burden. (And he’d like it noted that he believes inthe principle of the program, and could enter far morecredits in any given year than the requirementsdemand.) In past years, John served in the TorontoChapter, on the Discipline Committee (which he looksback on with a slightly bitter taste) and on theProfessional Conduct Committee (“where we felt wecould at least try to help”). He has always believedthere is an obligation of the larger firms to contributeby volunteering, to the overall benefit of the profession.His volunteer efforts these days are related to community groups in Muskoka (including a committeeof the Township of Muskoka Lakes Council, which isexamining waterfront density) and to the Council ofEducational Facility Planners International (CEFPI)where we sponsor a yearly award, in John’s name, forexcellence in school design.
In contrast to his twin brother, who retired at age55, John is taking the advice of many of his vintage-
20
Pe
rs
pe
ct
ive
s/
Sp
rin
g
20
04
John Shaw. Photo: CSP Insets, top to bottom: Ear l Haig Secondar y School, Toronto Distr ict
School Board, 1998. Photo: CSP. Faculty of Law Renovations, Queen'sUniversity, 2003. Photo: Peter Pastor, CSP. Pr ince Phillip Quadrangle
Infill, Upper Canada College, 2000. Photo: Richard Johnson
peers, to “avoid retiring until he absolutely has to”.As long as he has an energetic interest in the business that he helped to form, he hopes he’ll be offered acontinuing role in the practice. We know he has abundant stores of sage advice, keen insight into situations, and we value his opinions.
Why is John still working? One word, “People!”is his emphatic reply. Meanwhile remembered namesand faces — near our downtown Toronto office, and in other places like Spanish River, Elliot Lake, IronBridge, and Chapleau — remain close to his heart.
John Shaw is a Partner at Carruthers Shaw and Partners Limited, Architects, in Toronto.
Barbara Ross is an Associate Partner and novice but enthusiastic member of the curling team.
AN INTERVIEW WITH PAMELA CLUFFby Barbara Ross OAA
Fifty-seven years ago, our current Dean of the Collegeof Fellows of the Royal Architectural Institute ofCanada made a deal with the Dean of the PolytechnicSchool of Architecture in Essex. If Pamela could achievegrades within the top ten per cent of the first yearclass, she could stay for a second year of study.Thesame deal was made in each succeeding year until hercollege education was complete. In a class of eightymale students, most of whom were returning war veterans, this single girl, aged sixteen at entry, becamedetermined — and so, determined, the lady remains.
Pamela began her practice, alone, in 1957, whenbeing an employee in an architect’s practice and also anew mother wasn't difficult — it was simply unknown.“I started a practice because no firm wanted a newmother,” she says, despite her experience in oneCanadian office and her advanced knowledge of concretetechnologies (which were in use in the U.K. but new tothe Canadian industry at the time). Any suggestion thatthe calibre of women's work in architecture might bedifferent than that of men makes her bristle.
Yet she did not see the dual role of mother andprofessional as an issue. Her husband Bill Cluff waseventually able to leave the employ of another firm andthe two worked as partners in business for thirty-sixyears. While gracefully sidestepping the slightest implication that men might tend to be deficient in care-giving, she suggests most women instinctively approachwork with a nurturing attitude.That may be why themention of her name immediately brings to mind thesubject of Universal, or Accessible Design, or why shehas devoted so much of her professional and voluntarywork to health care. Still, she thinks nurturing probablyinfuses women's work anytime, anywhere, and she doesnot apologize for her pride in this tendency.
When asked what she sees as the major “improvements or un-improvements”, in the profession,since 1957, when she started her practice, her eyes roll.While she notes, with obvious pride, that “there areimmeasurably good architects in Canada today”, itseems that the quality of the basic building has notaltered substantially.
“And I can’t get a building permit these days in
the time we used to see entire projects constructed,”she says. It seems the size and extent of the bureaucracy associated with a building project intoday’s construction industry is out of control — particularly in the last decade, when the central challenge of every project seems to be “what can youdo at the cheapest price in the fastest time?”There hasalso been an explosion in the quantity of red tape.Ms. Cluff observes “this leaves no leeway for niceties.”
During the late 1960s, with her own funds and initiative, Pamela conducted an unusual research project.Collaborating with a behaviourist from York University,she looked at several of her own built works, to re-examine whether the actual use of her buildingsmatched the patterns anticipated in the initial pre-designprogram. International recognition of this researchbrought invitations to travel overseas — twice to Israel,to South Africa, Egypt, Korea and often to the U.S. —and it is this work and the spin-offs from it which sheremembers as the most fun and the most rewarding.
In this vein, she has gone out to the edges of thetraditional practice of architecture, collaborating withDavid Crombie and Councillor Ann Johnson to helpestablish the Wheel-trans service and the curb-cut program in the City of Toronto. She looks at the accessibility of all building types, from individual housesto, for instance,Terminal 1 at Pearson Airport and,more recently, the National Trade Centre and CasinoNiagara.This type of work began in the early 1980s,when, in response to a legal claim by a woman in awheelchair who encountered multiple barriers, shehelped develop accessibility policies and solutions for all VIA Rail stations across Canada.
Pamela is interested in the role architects can havein shaping public policy, particularly when this results in amore compassionate society. Currently, she is writing andlecturing, with architects and planners as her primaryaudience. She is hoping for a long-term vision, but notjust for hospitals and long-term care facilities. She advocates the idea that architects should help all clientsin every building type — to put as high a priority onproviding access to the fifteen per cent of the popula-tion that has functional limitations as on other spending.“Consider the vision which created the public transitsystems in the world’s greatest cities — New York,London, Paris — and consider the future capacity that
21
Pe
rs
pe
ct
ive
s/
Sp
rin
g
20
04
phot
os:M
ZE
Pamela Cluff. Photo: PJCAInsets, top to bottom: Ann
Johnston Centre, Toronto.Photo: PJCA.
Accessible bedroom plan: PJCA
was built into these systems, and how much moreinteresting the cities are as a result”.Then considerthose among us who need help the most.
Despite her day-to-day frustrations, Pamela Cluff is crystal clear about what is essential to being a professional architect — and what is not. While thecomputer, the OAA’s ConEd program, and theInternship process are in the forefront of much discussion these days, she is certain the drive to be creative and the talent to solve problems — of all sorts — is what makes an architect..
While it appears, today, to be “the way of theworld” to exert pressure on architects to design at the cheapest price in the fastest time, Pamela Cluff has devoted her life’s work to the discovery of whatpeople really need, and the development of solutionsfor those who cannot speak for themselves. She is certain there is much more work to be done. Sheintends to get on with her part of it. And she hopes we all can become equally determined.
Pamela Cluff is principal of P. J. Cluff Architect Inc. in Toronto, and Dean of the College of Fellows of the R.A.I.C.
Barbara Ross is an Associate Partner with Carruthers Shaw and Partners Limited, Architects.
AFTERWORD
At this point, it might only be fair to give some consideration to the work of author and researcherGarry Stevens, whose 1998 book The Favored Circle( Cambridge MA: MIT Press) provides a wealth of information about what distinguishes architects fromsociety as a whole. Stevens’s research is exhaustive and,in many topics relating to architecture, unique. In a section entitled “Age and Achievement” Stevens arguesagainst the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architecture’s(MEA) contention and the popular impression that“architects are something like painters, living long andproducing well into their old age.”*
Stevens employs what he calls his “VasariDatabase”, derived from the MEA’s entries and named for the Renaissance biographer Giorgio Vasari(1511–74), whose Lives of the Painters (LOP or, full title:Lives of Seventy of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptorsand Architects) is still popular among students of art andarchitecture**. In this database, he has recorded thebirth and death dates of the ninety-one percent ofentries for whom such information was available. Heestablishes that fully twenty-four percent of these individuals reached their eightieth year — a significantachievement, since the database reaches into the distant past — however, he disputes that this fact alonehas any significance. More important to Stevens is theachievement that accompanies this ripe old age.
To establish this, he compares the productivity ofarchitects with that of scientists, humanists and musicians (Stevens, pp. 134-6). According to this omparison, the architects' "productivity curve” is similarto that of musicians but, compared with scientists andhumanists, shows that “elderly architects are poor producers. In their sixties and seventies architects areonly about half as productive as either group. Contraryto common wisdom, it would seem [to Stevens] that
architecture is a game for neither the young or the old,but rather for the middle-aged.”
Ouch! Well, at least we beat out the musicians,whose productivity dips below ours in their seventies,but the writers and scholars take home the top prize.
Where does this leave us? Well, to begin with, the MEA includes only
architects born before 1930, so any current trendswould necessarily be excluded. Secondly, Stevens basesarchitects’ productivity on the creation of “notablework” — the main criterion for inclusion in the MEA.No other contribution really matters. If an architectisn't creating icons, then production has ceased.
“Notable work” is not easy to define, but we mayassume that it is an important part of keeping our profession in business. We may also assume that somearchitects will create a lot of it, even into advanced age,and other architects will never produce any at all. Doesthis imply that the former group is successful and productive while the latter is not? In talking with olderarchitects, it became increasingly apparent that the creations of significant buildings may reperesent animportant but relatively small element in an architecturalcareer. Architecture is much a larger exercise thatincludes the creation of families, collaborative relation-ships, neighbourhoods, communities, social structuresand a culture that appreciates and supports the creation of architecture — notable and otherwise.Without understating the importance of noteworthybuildings, the architectural profession has other tasks aswell: education, mentoring, community involvement, andthe guardianship of a tradition that is thousands ofyears old. Architecture is also a way of thinking andonce it has consumed you, it is difficult to disregard.And, more than anything, that is why architects endure.To quote architect Bill Greer, “architecture is somethingyou live with; you can’t help being interested in it”.
*Stevens, and other historians which he cites, dispute many otherfeatures of the MEA as well — selection criteria, importanceaccorded individual architects, inclusion of architectural examples,the proposition that architects are multi-talented to name a few.
**We constructed our own Vasari database, derived solely fromthe lifespan figures that Vasari gives in his book. Bear in mind thataverage life expectancy at this time was less than fifty years. Ofseventy-one entries, comprising prominent sculptors, painters andarchitects of the Renaissance, the average lifespan was 63.4 years(note three entries do not include dates). When you restrict thedata to only those eleven entries that Vasari identifies as architects,the lifespan jumps to 69.1 years, compared with 62.3 years for theremainder — a remarkable seven years’ difference. More tellingly,only one of the architects died before the age of fifty (Raphael ofUrbino at thirty-seven) and the longevity prize goes to architect/painter/sculptor Michelangelo Buonaroti — still working until hisdemise at eighty-nine. Painters and sculptors on the other handsuffered the loss of nine of their number — almost sixteen per-cent — under the age of fifty.(only two of them made it into theireighties, with Giovanni Belllini topping the chart at eighty-eight.)
Vasari had neither the energy nor the resources to confirm the exact dates for all entries, but even allowing for a degree of inaccuracy, it is clear that artists — painters, sculptors and architects — lived longer than most people in the Renaissanceand architects lived the longest.
EPILOGUE
Perspectives conducted many more interviews than wehave space to print. Interviews absent from this issuewill appear as a regular feature in following issues.
