​Currently:
- M.Arch candidate at UT Austin, working to bridge the disciplines of Architecture and Building
- Graduate Research Assistant to Larry Speck, F.A.I.A. 
​
Previously: 
- Intern at Wiss, Janney, Elstner
- Field Engineer at Crowell Builders
​- Licensed GC & Carpenter in Seattle, WA

Education: 
- Vassar College (2004 - 2006)
- Whitman College: B.A. Phil. Religion (2009)

​Contact: 
a.henry.rose@utexas.edu

HENRY_ROSE_RESUME.PDF

every day, architecture

---

Somewhere under a roof, 2009

The built environment is not an architect’s playground. It is our common property, and insofar as architects are trained to operate on this common property, they have a duty to act for the betterment of humankind. Viewed another way: the scale, quality, and availability of building stock combined with the layout of transportation networks are likely the two most significant aspects of any one person’s life. These are the essential physical conditions of civilization, which, when supported by the stability of other systems (political, economic, etc.) allow culture to flourish. 

It is hard to overestimate the degree to which healthy, resilient built environments provide the conditions for the well-being of the populace that inhabits them, and this is all the more critical as we experience catastrophic climate events of unprecedented magnitude and frequency, as well as the great flows of migration that these trigger. Similarly, the rising inequity of wealth distribution that is exploding land values in certain cities is posing a crisis of 'affordability' that is impossible to ignore. 

Such questions are not just for planners, policy-makers, and economists; they are absolutely valid architectural questions. Why? Because too much is at stake. The conversations in classrooms about form, meaning, mapping, materiality, iteration, parametrics, tectonics, typology, &c., seem so trivial when the world is literally burning. And what architects can bring to the table is an ability to work creatively in difficult spaces, to resolve complexity across multiple disciplines, to advocate for quality of life and, finally, to deliver the product.

On the whole, though, I do not find that the field has risen to the challenge. The discipline seems too concerned with its own problems, its own language, and with winning its own awards. More worryingly, it seems preoccupied with attracting attention rather than doing good work—which, so often, needs to go unnoticed. I firmly believe it is the invisible, basic, utilitarian aspects of our world that contribute to its overall quality, not its glittering anomalies. 

The work starts in the Schools. It starts with a reformed curriculum that does not denigrate pragmatism in favor of ‘design,’ that also commits to teaching substantial technical proficiency across multiple platforms, and which finally eschews the antiquated process of ‘critiques’ as the seminal evaluation of student work. This latter is old pedagogy, and it inculcates bad habits. Academic institutions have the privilege of being in the vanguard, and it is time they acted with due responsibility. It is time that Schools of Architecture made a commitment, not to their field, but to their students, and to the world.

— Henry
​
Austin, TX
​2019


​

​

---