As an expert in the field of architecture, I have witnessed the evolution of architectural programming over the years. One term that often comes up in discussions about this topic is CRS architecture. But what exactly does it stand for? Let me take you on a journey through the history of architectural programming and how it has transformed from problem finding to value creation. In 1946, a renowned architecture firm called Caudill Rowlett Scott (CRS) was founded in Houston, Texas. It quickly gained recognition for its innovative designs and approach to architecture.
In the following years, an industrial engineering firm called Sirrine merged with CRS, resulting in the company being renamed as CRSS, or CRS-Sirrine. While the Sirrine division continued to focus on engineering work, the architecture group remained dedicated to their craft. During this time, the post-World War II era, there was a growing emphasis on systemic thinking and decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. This led to the emergence of problem finding as a response to the challenges faced by aggressive architecture firms like CRS-Sirrine. The firm not only aimed for design innovation but also corporate growth. The concept of architectural programming, commonly referred to as a “program” or “summary”, became synonymous with defining a problem that needed to be solved through design.
This approach, known as “problem finding”, involved managing large amounts of information related to complex construction projects. It was a way for architects to differentiate themselves and add value to their clients in an increasingly commodified industry. However, this approach also faced criticism. Some argued that it artificially divided programming and design, and that its internal logic hid the fact that defining a problem did not necessarily solve it. It also prioritized the analytical and objective aspects of architecture, neglecting other important values such as aesthetics, meaning, and sustainability.
Additionally, the focus on programming as a specialization contributed to the fragmentation and dilution of the profession. Despite these criticisms, the search for problems continued to shape the profession's ideas about programming. It was even incorporated into the pre-design part of the exam to obtain an architectural license and was considered a necessary element of professional training by the National Board for Architectural Accreditation. Teaching programming has also posed a dilemma for educators, similar to teaching creativity in design. While it is possible to outline the steps, it is much harder to teach a real vision. This is where CRS-Sirrine's approach to architectural programming comes into play.
By focusing on value creation rather than just problem finding, architects can add real value to their clients and differentiate themselves in a competitive market. In conclusion, the full form of CRS architecture may be Caudill Rowlett Scott, but its impact on the evolution of architectural programming goes far beyond its name. From problem finding to value creation, this approach has shaped the way architects approach their work and continues to influence the profession today.
