Summary: We have two letters this week. One is from an architect who believes that “students, whether they like it or not, must take the time and initiative to seek out the experiences that will give them responsibility.” The second is a response from the architects to last week’s question of “why would any seminary today want its building to look as if it were designed in the late 19th century?"

Re: Developing Leadership and Interaction Skills

Leadership has to be observed—it cannot be taught !! The authors think that the principals of the firm can just sit around and share experiences and have the student just feel the "vibe." Students, whether they like it or not, must take the time and initiative to seek out the experiences that will give them responsibility. Then and only then can the leadership begin to develop.

And daily feedback???? The only question is not the pat on the head, but they should seek to answer the question, "Was I productive for the team and the office today?"

It takes time and there are no shortcuts to becoming an architect. Students and graduates have to sit back and continue learning--that is why it is called the "practice of architecture", a full career of seeking (the responsibility part) and becoming better (the leadership part).

—Michael Silva, AIA
Encino, Calif.

Re: Spirituality Meets Sustainability

In the June 13 AIArchitect letters, Patrick J. Quinn, FAIA, asked: “A wonderful approach to sustainability, but it seems that one key design issue has been ignored, leading to the obvious question: ’Why would any seminary today want its building to look as if it were designed in the late 19th century?‘"

The architects respond:
In response to the question posed by Patrick J. Quinn, FAIA, regarding our project at Columbia Seminary, we would respectfully contend that the design issue to which Mr. Quinn refers has not been ignored but rather engaged. Of course, semantics can be debated forever, but the project is not, in fact, intended to look as if it were built in the 19th century. It is intended to be evocative of the 19th- to early-20th century Gothic-inspired architecture found throughout the Columbia campus. In this regard, the design seeks to establish itself harmoniously within the existing campus context and the surrounding neighborhood, while revealing its own place and time through contemporary nuances of the building's design.

In truth, a 21st-century seminary might very well want to look like—or at least evoke—one built in the 19th century for the same reason that people in the 19th century wanted their seminaries to look like they were built in the 12th century. Gothic architecture was originally conceived as a formal expression of Christian theology, which at the time was heavily influenced by the scholastic movement. In this context, Gothic architecture can be understood as an effort to reconcile the dual religious traditions of spiritual mysticism and intellectual rationalism—an idea that is arguably more relevant to theological seminaries today than ever.

While these same principles can and have been expressed elegantly outside of the Gothic tradition, the desire of Christian institutions to build more overtly within their own architectural tradition does not seem inherently misplaced or difficult to understand. Instead, the more pressing question may be whether architects should use their professional acumen to understand and to build upon the cultural traditions of their clients or, alternatively, to "educate" those clients to appreciate and conform to those traditions with which their architects are more comfortable and familiar.

—Tony Aeck FAIA, LEED-AP, and Joe Greco AIA, LEED-AP
Lord Aeck and Sargent, Atlanta