So many of the buildings in this country are technological dinosaurs. Where is the innovation and sustainable design?

In Canada, the profession of architecture, like all professions, is self-regulated. Each of the 11 professional associations in the country is granted this authority through a provincial act. In a free enterprise society, this presents something of a dilemma. How do individual architectural firms strike a balance between societal and ethical responsibilities on the one hand, and the necessities of economic survival on the other?

I would suggest that, in part because of this conundrum, the architecture profession has steadily failed to meet the challenges placed upon it by Canadian society. Business concerns too often win out over societal responsibilities.

For example, it has been difficult for professional associations to regulate the practices of its members when it comes to fees being charged and quality of work produced. We see a similar challenge with police forces conducting their own internal investigations of misconduct. There is just no will to crack down on underperforming firms. This situation has directly effected the quality of both buildings and general environments produced by Canadian architects during the last half-century.

One of the greatest challenges facing the profession today is the delivery of compelling and technically proficient buildings; ones that endure, perform well, and contribute to their surroundings. Further, in the last two decades there has been significant pressure placed on the architecture profession to produce more sustainable designs. And yet, the vast majority of buildings currently being constructed in this country are technological “dinosaurs,” to quote Lisa Rochon in a recent article in the Globe and Mail. They are the architectural equivalent of Hummers! Why is this so, when we know that buildings consume enormous amounts of resources and energy?

Architects tend to blame others for their woes: clients, regulatory agencies, construction companies, engineers, community groups, etc. But as a self-regulating profession, this does not really cut it. No doubt working in a country that is notorious for its lack of innovation (see the latest Conference Board of Canada report) and lack of effort in addressing climate change doesn’t help things. Canadian architects are obviously just one part of a much greater problem.

And yet, many opportunities for design and technical innovation have been lost – opportunities that have been filled by a plethora of other disciplines willing to take up the slack: project managers, engineers, specialized consultants, etc. The architecture profession has marginalized itself with its passive stance.

On the bright side, there have been a handful of firms that have innovated in recent years in areas of green design, design excellence, and project delivery. These are the ones that will thrive over the long term, firms that are responsive, innovative, and interested in research.

As an educator, and former practitioner, I have watched the evolution of Canadian architecture for the last three decades. Schools of architecture in North America, as opposed to educational traditions elsewhere in the world, put a heavy emphasis on “design” with little emphasis on the technical resolution of a concept. This undermines the technical challenges of building buildings. After all, design is both a creative and a technical pursuit. Recent developments in digital media can help architects regain their technical edge.

So schools are part of the problem. But they are part of the solution as well. At the University of Calgary, we have embarked on a new curriculum that hopefully will address some of the challenges facing the discipline. This includes a commitment to design as a complex and ecological discipline, and further integrating technical topics into design projects.

There have been many important accomplishments in Canadian architecture during the last half-century, but many failures as well. It is evident that the time is now for the profession to raise the bar. This means committing to sustainable design, innovation in practice, lobbying for stricter codes, ensuring better remuneration for services (and paying young architects better), research, and making a serious commitment to construction. Standard Canadian architectural practice, with its underperforming results, is no longer getting the job done.