A recent issue of Architecture featured a roundtable discussion between several emerging architects about design leadership. One of the participants, Olivier Touraine, is quoted as saying, "Even beyond design-build, a lot of our colleagues think we should be developing more projects ourselves. We're building our own house this way, as client, user, and developer."

I was excited and encouraged by this statement, because lately I have had similar thoughts about the direction in which architectural practice should go. I have come to believe that the best way for an architect to effect positive change in the environment is to work like a developer. The architect would be a developer, client, designer, and builder, fund the project from beginning to end, and finally sell the building or its spaces for profit.

The foundation for this thinking was laid for me in graduate school. I took a few courses that helped me understand some essential characteristics of modernity. One of these characteristics is a distrust of sensory experience to provide direct and true knowledge about reality. This general philosophy translates to the distrust specifically of art and architecture to inform or influence the lives of human beings in any significant way. Now we live in a culture that generally views the arts as a source of leisure and entertainment, at best.

My experiences as an intern architect for the past three years have demonstrated the truth of this assessment. Our firm has been repeatedly frustrated by clients who are more concerned with profit and marketability than with design quality. This is not really their fault; they simply have not learned what took us years of intensive training to grasp: that the character of the visual environment has significant physical, emotional, social, and even spiritual impact on its inhabitants-for better or worse. Unfortunately, there are few opportunities outside schools of architecture to acquire this understanding. Thus the general public sees few purposes for architecture beyond the practical and profitable.

The solution is not simply a matter of "educating the client." The chasm between architect and client is too deep to be bridged by a few conversations. We find ourselves going against the very ethos of our age. It seems then that today, paradoxically, in order to serve our clients best we must go around them.

Only since hearing about the Conference have I considered how the architectural internship could aid the profession in responding to these issues, so I hope the one suggestion I have can be addressed in much greater depth and detail in September: Could interns be required to develop a small project themselves? (Up-front cost is an obvious issue-could grants be made available?) Sometime during their internship, would-be architects would have to seek and purchase a lot, design a marketable structure, manage the construction, and finally sell the property for profit.