ABSTRACT
A consideration of the fit of Live Projects in relation to professional bodie's requirements for schools of architecture requires establishing where the margins of acceptability for curricular activity lie and suggests narrowing our definitions of Live Projects to something manageable enough to disagree over. The grim Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Outline Syllabus appears to prescribe curricular content. Interpretation is critical to understanding validation; no approach to architecture education is considered by the RIBA as outside the margins providing that the school justifies its approach in a credible academic position statement and mapping document and demonstrates, through student's work, an honouring of intentions. Critically, the Live Project challenges European precepts of permanence. While Ruskin may not be an obvious source from which to critique the Live Project, his architecture versus building argument remains as relevant now as it was to the mid nineteenth century.
