"a form of framed challenge".

the last few posts on this blog have raised very pertinent questions on the role of architecture/ design education. especially after reading wuks's last entry, i'm filled with this great imperative to share an excerpt from an interview between NextD's VanPatter and Umbau's Tate -- interestingly, these extremely stimulating lines are from the VanPatter's queries than Tate's answers:

(all italisations are mine)

In the land of NextD, starting with a brief to create a building is a form of framed challenge. There is nothing wrong with that, but let's understand what that is, what that means. What that implies is that before design engages, the problem has already been framed up. Inherent in the yet-to-be-developed solution is the notion that it will involve construction of some building.

This logic can be found in most of our specialized disciplines including Architecture. It is a logic that comes to impact what is taught in the classroom and how it is taught. The problem with this kind of logic is that the world today rarely presents itself as a series of prepackaged problems. Most often what the problem or opportunity really is, is not clear at the outset. So jumping to the notion that the solution is a building might be premature. The skill-set for navigating unframed challenges is very different from the skill-set for creating building solutions to framed challenges. You can see how this comes to impact what your graduates are then capable of doing. If you are teaching them framed innovation skills but expecting them to take on the unframed challenges of world peace, there are likely a few disconnects there. The reality is that the skills being taught might not align with the types of challenges they are facing.

read the whole interview.

==========
add: 23 1230 Sep 2005, Friday.

it just struck me that Archinect's interview with 51n4e gave us a clue on a frame-work that architecture education can take if indeed the eventuality of a building were not always the right answer. on why the gang prefers the term "space producers" as opposed to "architects":

(again, all italisations are mine)

It's a matter of liberties. As space producers we concern ourselves with matters of architecture, urbanism, (non)design, imagery and other--currently unpredictable--space-related issues. The prime idea is not to wrap ourselves within a 100% architectural frame--that would be an absolute reduction of reality. And the reality is that we obtain commissions that do not necessarily relate to architecture as such, we've installed a useful ambiguity for ourselves. The notion of space producer enables us to deal with the disparity of opportunities heading our way. It enables us to live our voluntary credo: choosing not to choose.

You mention in your question that architecture is also the production of space, but for us the inverse is also true: space production is also architecture, but not limited to it.