1
1 Endorsed by the Trustees of the Commonwealth Association of Architects

I was struck by the thoughts shared in this editorial from Christine Murray, the editor of the
Architects Journal (AJ), of 3 October 2012: it seems to me to encapsulate a core notion of a responsive CAA.
Last week, I attended the opening of Haworth Tompkins’ ‘art factory’, the new Dyson Building for Royal College of Art. James Dyson, who part-funded the building, gave a speech on the importance of art and design in an age where anything can be replicated and manufactured elsewhere. A patented product can now be copied, he pointed out, in
China or India. But art and design, he said, holds promise for our economy.
Dyson’s speech echoed something I’d recently read in Daniel Pink’s book, A Whole New Mind, which describes how the ‘future belongs to designers, inventors, teachers, storytellers’ as we enter the Conceptual
Age. Creativity leads to new ideas through the synthesis of disparate things. This is invention, and it is priceless. It can only be copied after it exists, so the value is in being the person who thinks it up.
It struck me that this describes architecture; a profession that creates solutions to problems that exist in a particular place, and can’t be easily copied or manufactured elsewhere.
The Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA) is an association of architectural associations of the Commonwealth. It was formed in 1950 as a means of strengthening the education and practice of architecture within the Commonwealth.
In recent years however, the CAA has found itself under increasing financial pressure with a general fall in subscription income, a reduction in financial grants from the Commonwealth Foundation (CF), and, as a consequence, being forced to draw down on its reserves to maintain a level of operation.
It is worth noting that other architectural associations, most notably the American Institute of
Architects, has also embarked on a re-evaluation of its role in the profession and in society (see
Annexure E).
The CAA has a Board of Trustees who is charged with providing an oversight role with regard to the proper functioning of the CAA. The Trustees meet (electronically) from time to time in fulfilment of its obligations. While the Trustees recognise the limitations of their role, and the respect the role of the Council of the CAA, the Trustees have expressed their concern at the sustainability of the CAA in its current form.

This Dialogue Document is the commencement of a debate about how the CAA can be returned to a position of sustainability.
The CAA is managed by a Council who report to a General Assembly (GA). The GA meets every three years, while Council meets at least twice a year (although this may be electronic, i.e., either by telephone or Skype link).
The CAA has a number of committees including Education, Practice, and Communication. It also has a Validation Committee which is charged with inspecting schools of architecture within the
Commonwealth and validating the course offered.
The CAA has at least three streams of income: membership fees, CF Grants, and independent donations and/or fundraising events. The major source of income remains membership subscriptions. Validation is a potential source of income although Council and the GA has been reluctant to use this service as a source of income, preferring to rather break-even.
Global reach - The CAA, as one of nearly 100 non-governmental associations affiliated in one way or another to the Commonwealth, is linked to a much larger and stronger global family. The 2002 High-
Level Review of the Commonwealth established special accreditation criteria for these organisations: only accredited organisations are eligible to receive grants from the Commonwealth Foundation.
Accredited associations must be committed to the Commonwealth’s fundamental values, respect diversity, be transparent in their activities and be open to all Commonwealth members.
Of the accredited associations, the following are comparable with the CAA, i.e., essentially representing professionals:
 Association of Commonwealth Archivists and Record Managers (membership institutional and individual) institutional is open to national, state and provincial institutions and specialist repositories
 Association of Commonwealth Universities
 Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management
 Commonwealth Association of Law Reform Agencies
 Commonwealth Association of Paediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition
 Commonwealth Association of Planners
 Commonwealth Association of Science, Technology and Mathematics Educators
 Commonwealth Association of Surveying and Land Economy
 Commonwealth Association of Tax Administrators
 Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management
 Commonwealth Dental Association
 Commonwealth Engineers Council
 Commonwealth Journalists Association

 Commonwealth Lawyers Association
 Commonwealth Library Association
 Commonwealth Magistrates and Judges Association
 Commonwealth Medical Association
 Commonwealth Nurses Federation
 Commonwealth Pharmacists Association
 Commonwealth Veterinary Association
 Conference of Commonwealth Auditors General
 Conference of Commonwealth Meteorologists
Validation – An undoubted strength of the CAA is the validation service is offers: CAA Validation is widely respected within the architectural world beyond the confines of the Commonwealth. Much of the CAA Validation methods and procedures has been adopted by and/or had an influence on non-
Commonwealth organisations including the International Union of Architects (UIA).
Image – The CAA is seen in some quarters as being an old boys club dating back to the days of British hegemony. This is not helped by the fact that the Commonwealth is itself viewed as such in some quarters. The Commonwealth faces a somewhat uncertain future itself, with many members questioning the ongoing relevance of such an organisation.
Financial Base – The CAA’s membership base is tenuous: although most of the Commonwealthbased architectural associations are members, there is a lack of ongoing commitment to the paying of subscriptions. Essentially the question of value-for-money remains foremost in the minds of most members.
Global Reach – Currently the reach of the CAA is limited by its membership structure: for example, the ARB in Great Britain has 33,000 architects on its database, but RIBA’s total Chartered
Membership is 28,000 (84%) presumably including foreign and retired. There are about 30,000 architects in India, while the Indian Institute of Architects has a total membership of around 15,000
(50%). There are about 14,000 architects on Architect’s Registers in Australia while the Australian
Institute of Architects has about 11,000 members both locally and abroad (78%). There are over
9000 persons registered with the South African Council for the Architectural Profession including technologists, while the South African Institute of Architects has 2,400 individual members. This is probably the circumstance in most member countries.
Membership Categories – A number of Commonwealth affiliates have categories of membership ranging from national associations to groups to individuals (see Table 1). Most of the professional associations have one or other form of dual membership: the CAA would therefore not be out of line if it were to extend its membership categories to include Individuals, and possibly Groups (especially where structured associations do not exist or are fully functional). Groups would also facilitate institutions of higher learning joining the CAA.
Membership Base – The CAA is currently limited to associations for architects, whereas a much broader community of architectural practitioners exist, especially in the developing world. An argument can be made for the incorporation of the broader community in the interests of raising

professional standards of education and practice. In fact, many of the regional institutes in South
Africa have followed this practice, and are now known as Institutes of Architecture. This has further broadened their base to include persons interested in architecture, but not necessarily architects.
Table 1: Commonwealth Association Structures, Subscriptions, and Benefits
Name
Archivists and
Record Managers
Universities
Membership
Individual,
Institutional
(National, State,
Provincial,
Specialists
Institution
Subscriptions structure
Sliding scale based on membership numbers
Subscriptions amount £ (range)
10 – 100
Benefits
Publications, network, project support, advice
Public
Administration
Law Reform
Paediatric
Planners
Individual
Agencies, individuals
Individuals
Planning
Institutes
(considering individuals)
N/a
Formula related to UN Human
Development
Index , sliding scale from low to high
693 – 5878
Flat rate
Sliding scale, small to large
Two rates
(developing and developed countries)
Flat rate
N/a
113
20 -250
15 - 30
1
N/a
Publications, support, networking, recruiting, advocacy, research & policy analysis, conferences
Publications, networking, conferences
Networking, support, conference
Knowledge sharing, training, research, advocacy, conferences, scientific meetings
Networking, conference
N/a Science technology
Surveying
Tax
Educational
Professional
Associations and
Societies, associate membership for groups & individuals
Country
Sliding scale based on membership m
Basic contribution plus levy
Min 50,
Groups mutual agreement,
Individuals 25
Country, Flat rate, Country (4
Fostering development, standards, assistance, networking, knowledge sharing
Publications, training, conference
Networking,

Dental
Engineers
Journalists
Lawyers
Library
Magistrates
Medical
Nurses
Pharmacists
Veterinary associations, individual
Dental associations, friends
Engineering institutions
N/a
Institutional,
Corporate,
Individual
N/a
Institutions
Associations
Individual
National associations
Individual
Auditors General N/a
Meteorologists
N/a
N/a developed and developing, individual
N/a
N/a
N/a
Flat rate
N
Flat rate
Sliding scale
Flat rate
N/a
N/a
N/a developing, 12 developed),
Individuals 20,
Commonwealth associations 150,
Non-
Commonwealth
170
Friends 30 conferences, exchange
N/a
N/a
Institutional N/a
Corporate 350
Individual 40
N/a
Institutions N/a
Associations N/a
Individual 30
75 – 2250
15
N/a
N/a
N/a education, knowledge sharing, journal, training, conference
Networking, education, standards, research, publications
Standards, networking, knowledge sharing, conference
N/a
N/a
N/a
Support training, networking, knowledge sharing, professional education, workshops
Exchange, support, foster education, knowledge transfer, seminars
N/a
Network, support, information, conference, journal, membership directory
N/a
Promotion,

Organisational Programme – While the benefits arising from membership articulated by the CAA do not differ that significantly from those listed in Table 1, it could be argued that they do not offer sufficient value to either current members, or potential younger (future) members, with the notable exception of Validation and the Student Design Competition. The credibility of and support for these two programmes are especially noteworthy: they speak to the one element that Generation X and
Millennial’s (also known as Generation Y) value, and that is knowledge and international competitiveness, both driven by their exposure to a globalised world.
Generation X are persons in the 30 – 45 year old age group (born between 1965 – 1980): they are the first generation to grow up in the internet world. This group are less likely to be members of associations and institutes than their predecessors: only 30% in the US are members of professional associations (Miller 2011). Critically 97% of Gen X use the internet regularly, with 80% indicating that they use the internet to obtain health and medical information.
Millennial’s, young people born after 1980, are the first ‘connected’ generation. Millennials are the fastest growing segment of today’s workforce. Their usage of internet and smart phones is even higher than Gen X: 80% of Millennials sleep with their cell phones next to the bed poised to receive texts, messages, downloads, etc. (Pew Research Center, 2010). More Millennials have Facebook profiles than Gen X (75% versus 50%). Millennials are on course to become the most educated generation in the US, due to the emergence of the knowledge-based economy. When it comes to education Millennials aim high: even those out of school aim to go back at some time. Millennials are confident, ambitious, and achievement-oriented and want meaningful work and a solid learning curve. Millennials watch more vidoes on line than Gen X, and are more likely to post videos of their own.
Three drivers are exerting an influence here:
 Globalisation
 Media/technology interconnectivity (world-wide-web and social media);
 Knowledge value
Cutting-edge organisations are responding to these drivers by adapting their recruitment practices, their workplace structures, and their management practices. Universities are responding uniquely to the three drivers by offering online academic courses, some of which are free (see Annexure A). The following list provides a snapshot of how some Universities have responded to the new opportunity presented by these three drivers:
 The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Princeton University, Stanford University,
University of Michigan, and the University of Pennsylvania, are collaborating on offering 119 courses online, for free ( www.coursera.org/ );
 Academic Earth ( www.academicearth.org/ ) offers lectures by some of the best academic minds from a list of universities including Caltech, University of Cambridge, Carnegie-Melon,
Columbia, Cornell, Harvard to name but a few with the objective of making quality education available to everyone;
 Khan Academy ( www.khanacademy.org/ ) has over 3,300 videos on everything from arithmetic to physics, finance, and history.

The financial model employed offers the courses for free, but requires an examination fee in order to receive the qualification.
From personal experience arising out of visits to architectural schools and institutes in developing
Commonwealth countries, a singular challenge exists around educational standards and especially with regard to the teaching of sustainable building and construction activities as articulated in
Agenda 21.
It is my view that a unique opportunity exists for the CAA to fulfil this role in the architectural realm by utilising its established and respected position in validation, its credibility around the Student
Competition, and its work in designing for sustainability.
The CAA could network with respected schools of architecture and other specialists within the
Commonwealth to offer free courses in sustainable design, with a payment for examinations. The
CAA and the other parties would need to come to an agreement on income distribution.
The CAA could develop its proposed new website and E-Journal to create an multi-media integrated technology platform capable of hosting interactive lectures online, while also fulfilling other social media objectives, such as networking and knowledge sharing.
Changing Balance of Power – The Commonwealth was formed in the time when there were not many inter-governmental global associations. It was also formed at a time when many of the
Commonwealth countries were embarking upon the path of independence.
Similarly, the CAA was formed in a time when there were not many global architectural associations: essentially the UIA was a response to the bigger United Nations formation, while the
CAA was a response to the Commonwealth of Nations formation.
Much has changed in since those times: regional alliances have almost taken precedence over global alliances, driven largely by the immediacy of regional trade. The emergence of regional power bases has driven this circumstance as emerging economies begin to exert their influence in global economics. The most powerful alliance in this regard is BRICSA: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South
Africa.
Changing Alliances – The phenomenal economic growth experienced in the Far East has created a series of global alliances, especially around Japan, China, Malaysia, and Singapore. Not unexpectedly, regional architectural associations have developed in response, for example ArcAsia, an alliance of associations within the Asian Bloc. Similar developments have occurred in Africa (AUA), and South,
Central and North America. International trade has driven architectural associations to seek out relationships with potential trading partners. New regional trading opportunities have created new political alliances, which has diminished the role and influence of the Commonwealth, and arguably the United Nations (see for example Libya, Iraq, Iran, and more lately Syria).
Affordability – It is quite clear that for many CAA members membership fee income remains problematic due, in large part, to the economic circumstances affecting architectural practice globally. The current sliding scale based on membership number places a significant burden on large institutes where membership numbers do not necessarily offset the difficult financial circumstances

they themselves face. Certainly Table 1 indicates that CAA has among the higher, if not the highest, subscription rates.
Competition – Given the tightness of economic conditions globally, and the struggle by associations to retain members and membership fees, it would appear that certain activities proposed by CAA are perceived as a potential threat to membership and/or income (see for example the CAA E-
Journal and issues related to advertising).
Credibility Gap – There would appear to be a growing ‘credibility’ gap between CAA office bearers, their national institutes, and their national membership: credibility here is not a reflection on the character of office bearers but reflects more an inability to execute CAA Council resolutions at a local level. This is not an exclusively CAA problem as it is evident at UIA levels as well. The net result is that rank-and-file members do not perceive there to be any benefit arising from CAA membership.
Youth Membership – Fundamentally the sustainability of any association is its ability to attract new members, a task currently proving perhaps more difficult than in the past. There is good reason for the current difficulty.
For the CAA to be sustainable and deliver impact the following should be considered.
it needs to build and retain a larger, more active and participatory membership: the current CAA operational model is not doing this, and could result in the demise of the CAA within a relatively short period of time.
Building an active membership base requires that a new approach is adopted to membership: it seems quite clear that the current membership structure is more of a hindrance than a help. Thus new categories of members should be created including Individual and Group, which may include an
Academic grouping.
It is strongly recommended that the core strengths of the CAA, i.e., education, sustainability and networking, be used as a base on which to be build future member-oriented programmes. These programmes should have as its core objective skills development and training, and utilise the full range of new technologies in its delivery (see Annexure D). The development and delivery of these educational programmes should be a joint-venture between Commonwealth Schools of
Architecture, external expertise in the field, and the CAA as the service provider.
In addition, every effort needs to be made to reconstruct a viable annual conference of international standard: it would seem that this is a crucial element in developing the strategy articulated above.
Regular contact, sharing, and networking will stimulate activities within the CAA community.
Lastly, the B2B programme should not be abandoned: this will be attractive to Millennials who are comfortable with engaging with a broader globalised community.

The recommendations would likely have the following implications for the constitution.
There are no implications in terms of the aims and objectives of the CAA as set out in the constitution. The strategy proposed in this document is in line with those aims and objectives but sets out a different operational method that, iy argues, will assist the CAA in delivering greater impact with regard to those aims and objectives.
The strategy proposed requires amendments to the membership clause. This could take a number of forms: i) ii) iii) iv) v)
Open to individual architects who are registered and/or qualified (to be decided) and who are members of a national institute who is a member of the CAA
Open to individual architects (as above) who are members of a national institute within the Commonwealth
Open to individual architects (as above) who reside in a Commonwealth country
Open to individual architects (as above) regardless of Commonwealth status
Open to groups (to be defined) who may share a common interest such as conservation, heritage, universities, academics, sustainability, etc. who reside in a Commonwealth vi) country
Open to groups (as above) who reside in any country vii) Create a Friends of the CAA category for those who have an interest in architecture but are not registered architects viii) Open to students studying at Schools of Architecture within the Commonwealth ix) Open to students who are studying at Schools of Architecture throughout the globe
A change in membership will have constitutional implications.
Voting rights for individual and group membership will have to addressed, although the models used by most national institutes such as RIBA could apply, i.e., individual candidates make themselves available for election to Council.
Membership fees could recognise the above status, i.e., an individual member who is a member of a national institute who is also a member of the CAA could pay a lower membership fee than other individual member categories. Essentially one would want to encourage membership of a national institute by offering an attractive discount. The intention should be to keep national institute subscriptions to a bare minimum and set rate so that membership of the CAA is not a financial burden on the national institute. A sufficnetly large individual membership base should generate a larger income than the current model, and be less onerous on national institutes, particularly the large and very small institutes.
A new management structure might be required within newly defined roles for Council and the
Trustees. It may be that a two tier system, based on a typical parliamentary system such as the
House of Lords/Senate and the House of Commons/Congress could apply, where the trustees are

seen as ‘wise men and women’ having an oversight and guidance role. Trustees could be nominated by Council, or stand for election.
Recommendation
The following recommendation is made:
1) The General Assembly notes this Discussion Document
2) The General Assembly endorses the principles contained in this Discussion Document, with regard to the proposed aims and objectives, the extension of membership, and the restructuring of the Council and Trustees in response to the changes
3) The General Assembly mandates the Council to establish a Working Group to prepare a
Business Plan based on the aims and objectives contained in this Discussion Document and to propose the necessary constitutional amendments to give effect to this resolution and to report back to the members of the General Assembly within six (6) months
4) The members of the General Assembly be given a reasonable period of time to engage with the Council on the contents of the report with a view to framing and voting on a resolution aimed at approving a new constitution based on the principles contained in this Discussion
Document
5) The next General Assembly which will celebrate the 50 th anniversary of the CAA be used to officially launch the new CAA
I have included as Annexures some of the thinking from one of the leading think-tanks in the world and one that I make use of very often, as well as some other pieces relevant to this document.

Maree Conway, Thinking Futures 28 April 2012 The legacy of the industrial education model is strong. There is little dispute that the model must change at a system level, but progress towards and evolution of the needed changes is still glacially slow. Inspiring examples of the new model are present today, but the imperative to build an education model that is open, connected, engaged and personalised has not yet reached its tipping point.
Much money and effort is being spent today treating the symptoms to address the increasing irrelevance of our education systems, rather than addressing the underlying and fundamental dysfunction now emerging. Issues around retention, engagement, the learning experience, the way classrooms are designed and how technology is integrated are being addressed by tweaking the existing model rather than reinventing it. And reinvention is what is needed. Yet we see much resistance in the mainstream and reluctance to reinvent.
Recognising that all elements of the learning process - from content sourcing, packaging, delivery, facilitation, engagement, assessment and improvement - must change is gaining traction. Right now, open - and free - content is the strongest driver of change.
The Khan Academy was perhaps the first mainstream provider of online educational content - established in 2006, it now has over 3000 videos on maths, science, finance and humanities, all available for free. Academic Earth was another early player, providing videos of lectures from some of the most prestigious universities in the world - think Yale, Princeton, Harvard, MIT. During 2011,
Coursera was established in 2011 by two Stanford Professors to deliver free online courses from
Princeton, Stanford, UC Berkeley, the University of Michigan and The University of Pennsylvania.
Then came the first sign of that the tipping point was approaching. Sebastian Thrun and Peter Norvig from Stanford University offered 'Introduction to Artificial Intelligence' online for free - 160,000 people enrolled for free and 23,000 chose to graduate, and pay. Much of the course management was an experiment in artificial intelligence, which suggest these 'massive open online courses' are the way of the future. In January 2012, Sebastain Thrun resigned from Stanford to set up Udacity, an online university which is already offering courses - rocket speed compared to the usual process of approving and delivering courses within traditional universities.
But, having access to a huge range of high quality and free content is one thing, knowing what to do with it is another. The role of the academic/teacher will remain pivotal in the learning experience but their roles will change - from content creator to content facilitator, from 'sage on stage' to 'guide on the side'.
The tipping point is near.
The shape of 21st century learning is starting to emerge today, thanks to the efforts of innovators across the world, who are beginning to build its key elements of structure, process and systems.

The biggest challenge today is in changing the minds of those now in power in our schools, universities, colleges and in government. Agreeing that change is necessary is one thing, but being willing to provide the investment, commitment and time necessary to make major and widespread changes to the industrial education model all these decision makers grew up with is not straightforward.
Thinking about educational change from a global perspective is needed to allow us to let go of our now outdated beliefs about education models that are creaking under the weight of change. Only then will the isolated efforts of educators across the world gain enough support and acceptance to reach the tipping point needed to send the education world into the new learning space.
First Spotted: 28 April 2012
Retrieved Thursday, 30 August 2012 http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/trends.cfm?output=1&id=21836

Maree Conway, Thinking Futures
29 August 2012
Higher education is facing unprecedented levels of change - MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) providing remote access, new providers developing new approaches, students' expectations and demands rising. These changes will increase competition and require radical innovation from existing organisations in order to survive.
Some of the main changes include:
•online developments underpinned by 'smarter' technology thanks to developments in artificial intelligence, which change what an academic does in the teaching role,
•continued cuts to government funding and decreasing support for higher education, putting pressure on return on investment,
•students facing ever higher levels of debt as well as a poor employment prospects and slow growth economies,
•increased competition globally and within national boundaries, as new providers provide a more
‘consumer oriented' approach to provision,
•the strengthening trend towards openness in content creation and sharing, including open access research journals and peer review processes,
•new ideas about teaching such as the flipped classroom which enable teachers to shared live recordings of lessons or lectures,
•new ideas about what constitutes expertise, and just who is an expert are emerging - no longer do academics have a monopoly on expertise, and
•new ways of working and managing universities that allow them to be nimble enough to respond quickly to these changes.
It is the last one on the list that will probably be the hardest to achieve. Why? Because it means unlearning all that we understand a university to be, and designing new forms and ways of working that match the new external environment that is emerging. The values that many working in universities today hold dear will not have to be dispensed with however, but they will need to be revisited in the light of the new context in which universities find themselves today. Reinterpreting academic freedom, autonomy and tenure in the light of and open world could hold many threats, but equally, many, many opportunities. The new forms of online learning such as MOOCs don't add up to a qualification as we understand it today, and there's no evidence yet that a package of digital courses will be accepted by employers as evidence of competency and skill attainment. Yet, the

speed at which these new learning delivery mechanisms have hit mainstream in 2012 (albeit after many years of gestation) suggests that they are here to stay.
Universities have long been able to adapt to their external environments without having to change their basic structures and ways of working. The shifts they now face are challenging the very idea of a university that has allowed these institutions to sustain themselves over hundreds of years. Major changes will be needed across all areas, including:
•ramping up technological infrastructure to be able to meet the expectations of the next generation of students,
•accelerating the shift from academic driven learning to personalised and more flexible forms of learning - not a new concept but one that is becoming a reality among new providers and which money aware/ cost conscious students increasingly expect,
•building new staff skills and capacities to enable radical innovation,
•maintaining an even stronger focus on what really matters for the future,
•designing new organisational structures that remove the silos that now keep people and knowledge apart in universities, and most importantly,
•creating new roles for academic staff to ensure they stay at the centre of the whatever new ways of learning eventually emerge from this transition.
This combination of change is not the incremental change universities have become adept at over the years. In order to adapt, universities will need to innovate and challenge their own and our current perceptions of what a university is and what it does.
University leaders who understand the depth of these changes and their interdependencies, and take action today will be ahead of the game. Those who wait will most likely see their institutions go the way of companies like Kodak and Nokia who, despite being leaders in their markets, missed opportunities to take advantage of emerging change.
First Spotted: 29 August 2012
Retrieved Thursday, 30 August 2012 http://www.shapingtomorrow.com/trends.cfm?output=1&id=22132

st
Maree Conway 26 April 2012
As we push forward with the digital transformation of education, it's worth taking a look at just how greatly technology can impact teaching and learning -- and what's at stake, not just for our students but our society as a whole. Engaged and personalised are two key hallmarks of the digital education future and requires continued investment in educational technology.
Increasing engagement is about much more than simply entertaining our students with new devices and whiz-bang multimedia; it's about accomplishing the very real task of connecting them more closely to their coursework, to their teachers and to each other. Using adaptive learning systems will enable personalised learning, but the teacher/professor remains critical to success.

By Brian Libby
Beyond replicating desktop programs into a format that fits and functions on mobile devices, apps allow designers to work in ways previously unimaginable on a computer. The spectrum of mobile applications available has made designing on an airplane, street corner, or grocery store as easy as it is from an office. Need to show a rendering to a client or source materials from the road? There’s an app for that. The most promising apps, however, go beyond shrinking desktop tools onto a mobile device, as this quartet of tech-savvy designers note. Instead, these apps make the most of their connectivity and portability to create a new paradigm of digital design and collaboration tools.
When it comes to shopping around for apps, many architects have discovered that buying off the virtual shelf is not nearly as fun as customizing their own. And, along the way, these designers have also found that their personal favorites can lie outside the architectural realm.
Mobile technology allows Dallas architect Bob Borson, AIA, the blogger behind Life of an Architect— one of the world’s most popular architectural blogs—to turn what were once throwaway moments into productive time on the clock. The iPad handwriting app Penultimate (Evernote, $0.99) comes in handy for both his full-time work and his blog. “I tend to sneak it in while I’m in line at the grocery store,” he says. “You can take notes or do a sketch and email it back to team members or the office.
You can use your finger on the screen.”
However, Borson finds photography apps to be of most use, particularly in relating to prospective clients and showing them his work. “It’s about how I can make what I do and who I am apparent, and create transparency around what we do as architects—to demystify it a bit. Social media is changing the way our business is interfacing with users.”
Borson’s go-to photography app, Snapseed (Nik Software Inc., $4.99) for the iPad and iPhone
(Android version forthcoming), puts editing filters and tools—such as aperture settings and straightening assist—at his fingertips while allowing him to post photos to his blog on the road.
“There’s almost nothing that app won’t do for you,” he says. “It’s good for getting a dialogue going.”
Working in frenetic London, Zaha Hadid Architects associate Lars Teichmann admits that his favorite mobile app may be London Tube Status (Malcolm Barclay, free), which not surprisingly provides subway and bus schedules. But his firm has also embraced the creation of its own apps, and has been doing so since 2009. “Our website is not really tailored for mobile devices, so the app actually gives you the opportunity to view the same content in a more direct, interactive environment,” he says.
In June 2011, the firm released Zaha Hadid Architects (Woobius, free), an iPhone and iPad app that presents its portfolio, and provides information on project materials, design choices, and inspiration.
The office has continued developing the application, adding guides for specific projects such as the
Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati, the BMW factory in Leipzig, Germany, and the London
Aquatic Center for the 2012 Olympics. Another publisher has created a separate app for the
Contemporary Arts Center (Planet Architecture, $4.99).

“You want to make the most use of the fact that the app is portable,” Techmann says. “If you go to a project, you can use the app to view plans, sections, and details. You can zoom into various building elements to find out how they’re put together and what they’re made of. You can see how it looked during construction and how things are assembled. It’s like a tourist guidebook.”
“I’m interested in apps where the interface between wireless networks, natural infrastructure, and physical architecture are most thought provoking,” says Sheila Kennedy, AIA, founding principal of
Boston firm Kennedy & Violich Architecture and KVA MATx, the firm’s interdisciplinary research unit.
But, she says, “My favorite apps—the ones I know best—would have to be the ones that we’ve been designing.”
As part of a comprehensive river restoration project in Minneapolis, Kennedy’s firm is designing a free mobile app, River Talk, which solicits crowd-sourced information on the local wildlife. “It’s interesting … to give them [visitors] the tools to become citizen journalists or citizen conservation workers, and to be able to post that and aggregate it.” Her firm is working on a similar app for New
York’s 34th Street Ferry Terminal; visitors will be able to view tidal flow measurements for the site’s river estuary as well as the number of people on the ferries.
Kennedy also enjoys using “phone apps that offer environmental monitoring capabilities.” Lorex
Mobile ECO (Lorex Technology, free) for iPhones, iPads, and Android devices enables users to view and control live video streams, she says, while Tricorder (Moonblink, free, though now defunct) for
Android devices allows users to point to a geographic area and detect magnetic fields, carbon dioxide, and other environmental data.
Mark Collins, co-director of both the New York design firm Proxy as well as the Cloud Lab at
Columbia University’s Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, has co-created
Morpholio (Morpholio Apps, free), an app for architects to critique each other’s work. Moreover, the app tracks how the audience looks through portfolios, Collins says. “Google has its own page rank algorithm. We’re trying to apply similar technologies to design. How long did people look at your portfolio? Did one image stop them in their tracks? We’re trying to make that a platform for critique and criticism.”
Collins also has a related app in the works, Trace (Morpholio Apps, free), that will enable users to sketch on top of shared designs. “The ideation and critique of architecture can be really augmented by this device network,” he says. “Technology is going be an instigator of conversation, an expander and evolver. The question is if we can evolve with that conversation.”
With his hands in so many endeavors, perhaps it’s no wonder that Collins’s favorite personal app is
Sleep Cycle (Maciek Drejak Labs, $0.99), which monitors and measures your sleeping cycle throughout the night. “It will move up your alarm so it synchronizes with your sleep cycle,” Collins says. “I was skeptical, but it works great. It’s a nice tool for architects. We need a lot of sleep and we don’t get it.”
Retrieved Thursday, 23 August 2012 http://www.architectmagazine.com/mobile-technology/building-app-titude.aspx

The AIA is engaging its members and the public in an important conversation about the future.
By Ned Cramer
The AIA embarked upon an important journey earlier this year—a year-long project called
Repositioning the AIA. The goal, according to the Institute, is to better understand what “the role and voice of the AIA” should be at a time when the profession (and practically every other organization and individual) faces massive change on most every front: social, cultural, technological, economic, political, et al.
To help guide the process, the AIA has retained blue-chip graphic design firm Pentagram as well as branding firm LaPlaca Cohen, which has worked with an impressive roster of cultural institutions, from the National Gallery of Art to the L.A. Philharmonic. The repositioning is in very good hands.
The word “branding” brings to mind visuals like the Nike swoosh. And while new graphics could emerge as one outcome of the AIA repositioning, the initiative promises to do far more than simply revamp the old “chicken-on-a-stick” logo.
The AIA has been conducting surveys and interviews with the membership, architects’ clients, and the general public—and has reached some 30,000 responses as of this August. Here’s what clients had to say when asked about their “experiences, motivations, and barriers to working with architects,” according to a recent project update on the AIA website: “The leading motivator cited for working with an architect was ‘Architects have knowledge of construction requirements and building codes.’ This statement was selected over twice as frequently as ‘Architects have superior design expertise.’ ”
That alone is pretty revelatory—and there’s more: Members of the general public, for their part,
“believe it is difficult to know where to find a qualified architect and choose the right architect for a project.” Intelligence such as this, taken cumulatively and with an open mind, could help steer not only the reshaping of the AIA brand, but also the very way that the Institute translates its mission into deeds.
Positive change requires asking difficult questions and being willing to sweep away some long-held prejudices and opinions. To that end, consider the following enjoinder from LaPlaca Cohen and
Pentagram: “The AIA should honestly assess how many attributes on the list below accurately describe the AIA community:
• Progressive, not reactionary
• A vital resource, not a superficial designation
• Universally beneficial, not limited and elitist
• Adding value, not additional financial burden
• At the cutting edge, not a follower

• Public facing, not behind closed doors
• An architecture resource for all, not just for industry insiders
• Results- and benefits-focused, not process-driven or self-referential … ”
LaPlaca Cohen and Pentagram are being provocative here, but in an extremely smart and wellintentioned way. Their list exposes core issues to the light—issues that practitioners themselves are raising, in increasingly public forums. Witness the reports from the field that my colleague Jane
Kolleeny (until recently an editor at Architectural Record and GreenSource) is posting at aia.org/repositioning. The reports, based on her interviews with groups of members across the country, make it perfectly clear that there is widespread desire for the Institute and the profession to change in meaningful ways.
If you ask me, it’s a very good thing for the AIA to be doing a bit of soul-searching. Institutions as a whole are notoriously resistant to change, especially when change is thrust upon them. And the emergence of social media combined with the difficulties presented by the Great Recession, climate change, and an aging population are forces well beyond the profession’s control. What we can control is the way we respond to such forces, which makes the Repositioning the AIA initiative a wise and ultimately essential endeavor. There should be no doubt about the necessity for change, or our ability to determine the correct path to take next. We simply need to keep an open mind.
Retrieved Friday, 05 October 2012 http://www.architectmagazine.com/architects/repositioning-the-aia-hope-change.aspx?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=jump&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=A
NW_100412&day=2012-10-04

LOW-COST, EXPERT-ACCREDITED, GREEN BUILDING, DISTANCE LEARNING, MASTER DEGREE
PROGRAMS
You can earn an Expert-Accredited Master of Business Administration in Sustainability Degree
(GMBA) or a Master of Science in Green Building Degree (MSGB) in as little as one year of part-time study. Both programs are offered at remarkably low cost to those affiliated with the U.S. Green
Building Council or otherwise professionally working in green building, through Friday, November 16,
2012.
No-interest, extended payment plans are available.
Grow your career in the fastest-growing, most important, and personally satisfying professions of our time:
Expert-Accredited Green MBA and Green Building Specialist.
From the award-winning San Francisco Institute of Architecture (SFIA), the world's longestestablished and largest professional school of green building. SFIA has over 1,200 current distance learning students worldwide, including university faculty and administrators, design and construction professionals, and representatives from numerous national corporations, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies. You can enroll at the Master Degree level without an undergraduate degree, if you have four or more years of work experience in green-related design, construction, or management. (Following the design professional education equivalency standards of the State of California.)
The Green MBA Program presents the best business practices, in the context of green building enterprise.
The Master of Science Program covers all the major technical and design aspects of green building, going well beyond the basics covered by LEED.
Course and textbook lists and a roster of our independent green building accrediting experts for these programs are available upon request, from info@sfia.net.
Green MBA and Master of Science in Green Building Degree
Programs at the lowest possible cost. Low tuition discount, now through November 16, 2012. (For over 20 years our school, San Francisco Institute of Architecture, has prided itself on keeping costs low while delivering first-rate education.)
Efficient, self-paced distance learning, to fit your schedule. Many dedicated students finish within a year of part-time study. Independent experts in sustainable design, green building, and ecological business management will coach, review, and accredit your final thesis work. (Our faculty readers monitor and grade every course work submittal.)
- Student centered. No frills, no nonsense -- just solid education, assisted by top experts in each subject area.

- No hidden, add-on fees. And we recommend the lowest-cost sources of textbooks.
- Unprecedented satisfaction guarantees and refund policies.
The courses are textbook based, and all communication is by email (and fax or phone when needed).
The program is entirely self paced. If you can put in one or two evening study hours for four nights a week and four to five hours on weekends, you can complete the program in as little as one year.
There are no deadlines if you require more time. No visits to our school are required. (But you can sit in on classes as a guest student, whenever you're in the San Francisco Bay Area.)
The new Expert-Accredited Degree Programs require reading and reporting on approximately 18 books, and producing a final thesis focusing on your future in green building. Your work will be monitored every step of the way.
In addition to experts' review of your thesis work, faculty readers will provide feedback for all your course work. We follow transparent, objective criteria in all grading, to prevent subjective or arbitrary judgment of student work.
Upon completion of your specialized study, you'll earn:
1) A Diploma, Transcript, and Letter of Subject-Matter Expert
Accreditation of your studies for wall display and your portfolio.
2) A personalized Letter of Recommendation from SFIA faculty members who have reviewed your coursework.
3) Published membership in a new National Registry of
Certified Green Building Professionals.
This is the most credible, authoritative, professional credentialing system to be found anywhere in higher education.

Miller, J., (2011). Active, Balanced and Happy: These young Americans are not bowling alone, The
Generation X Report, Volume 1, Issue 1, Fall 2011.
Pew Research Center (2010). Millennials: A Portrait of Generation Next,