You can’t compare it to chefs. Imagine if a chef was forced to document all the ingredients like packaged food and all the nutritional information. So far, they just have to deal with health inspector, IRS, and some various other jurisdictions. I’d imagine the same effect of adding layers of paper to the act of creating: that the menu wouldn’t change very often. People aren’t going to pay more for that sandwich… So, you have to make cuts to remain profitable. That means less pay, more labor, less options for the same damn thing. Add something ‘revolutionary’ like some oven that cooks in half the time and people will also start demanding their food faster…. And at the same time, equating that means less work for you, so they want to pay even less than before. And maybe Bill’s BBQ sends it to you in some pretty packaging, so now your old waxed paper isn’t ‘cool enough’ for the customer… (note the food isn’t the problem). And on and on… higher expectations, more paperwork, and a fickle consumer who’d readily go somewhere else for any minor failure to meet their ever changing expectations.
Do architects design buildings or do they conduct the project, framework, and coordination necessary to get buildings built? Or both? It seems like the former should involve at least a few incorporeal ideas or concerns - aesthetics, symbolism, metaphor, rhythm, pattern - while the latter truly is just about building buildings.
The problem with saying, " __________ is what architect's do." is that Architects and architects and designers do lots of jobs. Many times I find myself doing work that would traditionally be done in an architecture or planning office, yet I work in a design and fabrication oriented office. Lots of times, architects come to us with designs that are really more suited to our area of expertise - how dare they transgress the boundaries of practice and infringe on the design of something that is not a building! The nerve!
I'm inclined to think that you have boiled this down a little too simply. To me, cooks cook food and chefs cook food well. It's the extra panache that they add that makes them chefs versus cooks. The cooking food is a base requirement I suppose but no one goes to a chef looking for cooked food that looks like cap and has terrible texture.
I think the problem is that people look to architects for something similar. Built buildings with just the bare minimum. That's how you get all the in house designers for developers. So perhaps designers design buildings and architects design buildings well? I don't think you can deny that architecture is both an art and a science just as I think you can't leave out the fact that building is the main thing going on. Perhaps we need to shift more of the balance between art and science to the science side these days as opposed to the art side but we can't eliminate it.
I certainly don't think we can keep building as we are now just because people love it. I think product design is a good analogy here. How many things do you find you love that did not exist 10 years ago? I love my laptop and need it but it didn't exist at the beginning of this century. So the question here perhaps is what is that same thing in architecture? We know it's not in super artistic buildings but I'm sure that the answer is not perpetuating the current situation by eliminating art from the profession and focusing "what architects do"
"Out compete the developers by offering better options to the public that are more in line with the only 3 things that matter in architecture. Style, theory, etc....all over the heads of the public. Build well and build beautiful. This is all that matters to anyone outside the profession."
I couldn't agree with you more. I'm always amazed that so many architects (at least fresh out of school) would look disdainfully at the idea of working for or with a builder. There's so much work to be had if one bothers to learn about a builder's priorities like picking plastic trim so they won't have to come back in 3 years to replace the wide grain sap wood. Only when you learn to speak the builders language can you influence him in to reducing the seven gables to 2 or three. Who knows, you might even make our sluburbs more beautiful while advocating well build buildings when you know how to explain their effects on a good selling home. Firmness, commodity, and delight.
curtkram,
"This 'architect as artist' is absolutely, unequivocally, not true. not even a little bit. there isn't even a shred of anything realistic in that statement."
Did you ever take a class on the history of architecture or did you look at those class as a window into an alien world? When people admire something, they tend to do it with their eyes first, kind of like when I met my wife. You should see my yard, it's an environmental wet dream with all the years refuse going right back into the beds once fully composted, not a chemical in sight. But do you think that's what makes me the happiest reading my sunday papers on the porch? We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
"the problem with pretending architecture is some sort of 'art' is that a lot people who really suck at art think they're good. so they make their little crayon sketches on napkins and hand them off to someone who actually has to do real work"
And you sound like the person most qualified to judge what art sucks? Plus, I've never seen crayon sketches passed of as well thougth out design, unless it's by those theoretical archtiects who look down their noses the most.
"jla, i can't help but think that if you're that much of an artist you would have a profile on here with some pics to show off the work you've done."
Did it occure to you that one dosen''t need to show off their work to make a point? Again, would you be the judge of what you believed is "artistic"? After saying "get rid of the architects who want to be artists," that's not much of a taunt.
As for your conflating the "art" of architecture with "just flowery bullshit"...WOW! This is the kind of additude that leads to our bad reputation, as if striving for beauty is sissy stuff. You seem angst ridden about stuff that comes so naturally to humans, the persuit of beauty. And to intimate that one can't do this while solving a myriad of other problems is all the more depressing. All this macho talk about flowery bullshit. I can't imagine thinking like that when my kids show me their drawings, definatly my daughter's. Then again, your additudes toward "the public" are well documented.
"I know many many people from non-arch backgrounds (blue collar people) that express complete disgust for this crap scape that dominates the built environment."
And how many think architects are responsible for the crapscape?
The most illuminating critique of a building comes from the occupants after a year or so, and has nothing to do with awards, articles and published photos, fancy materials, pretty plans, intellectual justifications (a.k.a. bullshit rhetoric), return on investment, etc.
Please refer to the previously cited thread if you insist on continuing down the 'architecture is art' path. We've been down this road before.
It's amazing to me that most of the comments on here completely missed the point of the article. Not only has the "architecture is art" debate been beaten to death, it has very little to do with the financial position of the profession. That is what the article is pointing out. The author's conclusions clearly state that:
Step number 1 is to believe in the value you bring to your clients. This battle is won in your own heart and your own mind. Are you willing to stand up for what you are worth?
In shorthand: stop taking lousy fees. If you bring something of true economic value, you should be paid for it.
Step number 2 is to communicate that value to your clients in a way that they can understand.
This is the difficult one. Most people admire, and possibly desire, the work of an architect. Whether they are willing to pay for it is something else. They need some type of incentive to spend money for our services. This is where the "art" argument becomes meaningless. In a culture of "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" and Walmart, how many people really understand design, let alone would spend their hard-earned money on it? Architecture schools and the AIA must come out of their bubble if they are to develop architects with skills that others will pay for.
Architects who have the luxury of having wealthy connections and trust funds don't need to care about the money. Academic theorists and "being poor = artistic integrity" types will never see beyond their self-righteousness. It's the average who will have to change the profession.
desdesign: "Most other professional organizations, certainly the AMA and the ABA, have strong lobbies. Outside of printing contracts and handing out awards the AIA is useless."
Just for the sake of argument, let's assume this to be a valid criticism. If so, let's also consider for a moment why this situation might exist.
First of all, let's review some rough numbers pulled from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the websites of the professional associations in question.
Employment: (Licensed professionals - 2012)
. 107,400 - Architects
. 592,670 - Lawyers
. 691,400 - Physicians and Surgeons
Membership:
. 83,000 - American Institute of Architects
. 400,000 - American Bar Association
. 217,490 - American Medical Association
Although we might wish otherwise, "lobbying" is all about throwing money at elected officials to get their attention and support. Given the numbers shown above, our profession simply doesn't have sufficient size (and therefore sufficient economic clout) to lobby effectively.
It's also interesting to note the following related numbers:
. 1,042,231 - membership of the National Association of Realtors
. 140,000 - member firms in the Association of General Contractors
. 140,000 member firms in the National Association of Home Builders
It's a numbers game, guys -- and we're on the small end of that spectrum. Moreover, as is asked here repeatedly, do we really want to keep increasing our numbers and further increase the amount of competition we face every day?
"Most people ...need some type of incentive to spend money for our services. This is where the "art" argument becomes meaningless. In a culture of "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" and Walmart, how many people really understand design, let alone would spend their hard-earned money on it? Architecture schools and the AIA must come out of their bubble if they are to develop architects with skills that others will pay for."
What you call the culture of the Kardashians has always been with us and always will. Even those of us who consider ourselves above that culture will indulge in the pure pleasure of the superficial, so to wish it away or to brand our culture 2 dimensionally isn't accurate. As for how many people understand design, how can you say that when most architects can't even agree on the meaning of design, nor should they have to. I'd say most of the public is probably more in accord as to what "design" means and it's us architects who have deconstructed it's meaning in to a relative soup of atomic particles. It's always easier to deconstruct than it is to construct. People pay for design all the time, it just might not be your taste. That's why the constant segregating our profession from WalMart America does nobody any favors. It's too simplistic and it won't help us secure more money from our customers. Some of us don't have an option but to take "lousy fees", and as jla-x rightly pointed out a while back, if you don't think the public imagines us as artistic engineers at best, then you are living in a different culture than I am. Any builder can build a sound shelter, it's the artistic (not conceptual or theoretical) aspect why "most people admire, and possibly desire, the work of an architect."
We do have the option of not taking lousy fees. If there is nothing that can be changed about the current situation, then why discuss it all? If you just want to go online and bitch, then save us the time.
I'd say most of the public is probably more in accord as to what "design" means and it's us architects who have deconstructed it's meaning in to a relative soup of atomic particles.
Seriously?? Where do you live? The public's idea of good design is "enough parking".
If you really believe that the public has a better grasp on design than architects, then why are you an architect? Why would, as you say, anyone value the "artistic" skills of architects?
if you don't think the public imagines us as artistic engineers at best, then you are living in a different culture than I am. Any builder can build a sound shelter, it's the artistic (not conceptual or theoretical) aspect why "most people admire, and possibly desire, the work of an architect."
Did you read the article's description of the public's perceptions? They don't have any idea what architects do. Let's face it, most people would be bewildered if they sat in on an architectural critique. The typical person (who is middle to lower class) will not understand what is "artistic". I come from a lower-middle class background and my relatives would have know idea what good architecture/design is. Even the people I know who are educated and successful only buy their homes based on square footage and brand-name appliances. Don't give the average citizen to much credit when it comes to taste.
The public's idea of good design is "enough parking".
Good design anticipates and serves required needs. In an automobile-based society failure to provide enough parking is a major failure. Of course automobile-based society is itself a major failure. Thank Henry Ford for buying up street car companies and shutting them down.
The typical person (who is middle to lower class) will not understand what is "artistic".
Bullshit. People who actually work for a living - especially people who make or service things - understand and appreciate the value of art and craftsmanship far more than those who simply buy it for status or investment value.
Don't give the average citizen to much credit when it comes to taste.
Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. That you don't like someone else's doesn't mean yours is better than theirs. If your subjective aesthetics are the most important aspect of your architecture you are the problem, not the solution.
Really Miles? I'm talking about the average person living in lower class suburbs outside of Cleveland or Topeka. Not the folks you see in the Hamptons.
People who make or service things. Huh. I'm sure you've hung out with a lot of auto-workers and McDonald's managers, you know people who work for a living. I've read your bio and looked at your website. Don't pretend that you aren't just another sheltered trust-fund kid who does architecture as a hobby, and not as a way of putting food on the table.
A sense of aesthetics is the only thing that separates architects from the construction managers and developers that architects are always griping about. If you didn't develop, or at least fine-tune, a sense of aesthetics at RISD you kind of wasted Daddy's money. And you basically negate the whole purpose of design education if you say that everyone's aesthetic is equally valid. That's the most false and illegitimate type of egalitarianism.
what on earth would make you think an auto worker doesn't have good taste, or the ability craft really amazing stuff? they actually build stuff instead of sitting in a studio pining away about how their intellectual version of a pseudo-utopia isn't happening while pretending to read derrida.
And you basically negate the whole purpose of design education if you say that everyone's aesthetic is equally valid.
Some guys like skinny chicks, some guys like chubby chicks. Some guys like nice chicks regardless of what they look like. Which is the correct aesthetic - the one you decide? LOL Maybe your education isn't all it's cracked up to be, or you missed the point of it, or the cup was already full.
The typical person (who is middle to lower class) will not understand what is "artistic".
That's the most false and illegitimate type of egalitarianism.
Agreed.
I come from a lower-middle class background and my relatives would have know idea what good architecture/design is.
But you do - how on Earth is that possible? (pssst ... "no idea")
Even the people I know who are educated and successful only buy their homes based on square footage and brand-name appliances. Don't give the average citizen to much credit when it comes to taste.
So it's not just the poor and stupid who are aesthetically impaired, but also the wealthy and educated? Or is it just those who have different tastes from yours?
You're off to a great start with your first four posts here on Archinect. Please, please keep going! I can't wait to see just how far you can jam your head up your own ass .
I'm talking about the average person living in lower class suburbs outside of Cleveland or Topeka.....and McDonald's managers
Have you seen the new McDonald's building design standard? it's actually kind of nice.
Anyway - There is a looming crisis for drive-only suburbia - which will become really apparent once a critical mass of boomers are no longer able to care for themselves (likely within the next decade). I'm guessing we're going to be much less concerned about whether or not the average person understands "aesthetics" than we are with helping figure out how to retrofit a lot of our infrastructure and built environment to accommodate more equitable and cost effective forms of mobility.
I don't know how it is where you are, but where I am, we don't see much suburban work around anymore.
Saying that the public wants the environment they get is like saying they want the politician they get The limited options available provide a very poor window into "what they really want". The job of the creative is not to determine what they want but rather to create options that they could either choose or not. Those options can be designed with a hypothesis of what people want, but we really don't know until we test it out. If only 2 drinks existed (coke or Pepsi) we will always conclude that the public loves cola when in fact they may just be settling for the least disliked option. My basic point is that architects have failed to create new options that are accessible and competitive.
Most people want and understand quality. Most people want beautiful and interesting things. People universally love Central Park and hate parking lots. People love fountains, people love trees lined streets. They may not care about the historical and philosophical roots of a certain place, but they easily get the difference between quality and crap and between pleasurable places and not pleasurable ones. If this was not true, people would not gravitate to similar "tourist" spots. These places IMO are desired for their really basic fundamental qualities, walk ability, natural beauty, scale, etc. I don't claim to know the specifics, but there is a good reason (an architectural reason) why people gravitate towards certain places.
jla, i'm pretty sure what they really want is the path of least resistance. they want cheap, fast, and easy.
there was a time when we had downtown areas with small grocers and hardware stores. then home depot and walmart moved to the interstate, and everyone (the public) started going to the interstate to buy stuff. the businesses in downtown had to close shop because they weren't selling stuff anymore. (as a side note, downtown was, of course, not really that well designed or built. viewing a romanticized past might make it look that way, but they built the way they knew how with the materials they had.)
that happened because the public very clearly wanted to go to the interstate and buy crap from home depot and walmart. that's why home depot and walmart exist, and why downtown does not anymore. how do you explain that away, and say that all those people (the public) wanted to keep their local businesses downtown, but they just couldn't?
my mom cooked when i was kid, despite the fact she put in long hours and was probably pretty tired at the end of the day. at that time having her cook for my siblings and i was a preferable option to going to mcdonalds. now, since mcdonalds has become cheaper and more accessible, you pointed out your sister takes her kids there instead of cooking for them. your sister still has the option to cook for her kids the way your parents did and the way my parents did, but she chose the path of least resistance. it would be very inconvenient for her to take the time to cook what you grew up on, and it would probably cost more.
also, the public does not hate parking lots. the public wants to drive to the parking lot because it's easier and faster. the parking lot is there because it's the path of least resistance. the public may dream of sitting in a grassy meadow surrounded by an old growth forest in the middle of venice, but few people will give up the convenience of a car and bright city lights and such to make that happen. people only enjoy those historic places for a few days at a time, but they want to get back to their preservative-laden bread that can sit on a shelf for 2 weeks because having to go to the baker every single morning is just too inconvenient. that preservative laden bread is also a lot cheaper, because stuff that goes bad tends to get thrown out at the store.
it's great if you want to pour your soul into your work and all that. more people should care about what they do. but that doesn't make you an architect. contractors, builders, framers, etc. can all pour their soul into the work they do. that doesn't make them architects either. if you don't know how to be an architect first - or if you don't know how to design a building - then it doesn't matter how much you care about what you do or how devoted you are to pouring your soul into your work. you're not going to be a good architect until you know how to design a building. that's why real-life experience can't be replaced, no matter how much you want it to. it's why the master-apprentice relationship has pretty much always existed.
you said earlier:
Building competent buildings that don't fall down is the bare minimum. Building places that people love and cherish is the only skill we have (or should have) that makes us special from engineers, contractors, building designers
architects don't build buildings. that's what separates us from contractors. architects design buildings. designing a building that is competent and won't fall down is the bare minimum for an architect. the person who builds our designs can be a crazy good craftsman who pours their soul into their work to make beautiful things that will make women weep at even a passing glance. that doesn't make them architects. pretending their ability or contribution is someone reduced because they don't carry the title architect is just wrong.
jla-x, there's not much more to add to your absolutely clear analysis, but it's thought inspiring. All I know is this superiority additude is very stuborn. It's obviously endemic to us as we rely on organizing information to navigate our world and inevitably assign value as our culture or we see fit. Infact, the earliest signs of symbolic non-verbal communication are stones and beads decorated with geometric scratches found when humanity was crowded on the shores of South Africa some 60-100K years ago, struggling to survive from massive climate change, so my guess is, it's as old as we are modern humans.
Maybe the fear of being in the minority opinion or being seen as a rube pushes many of us to impose this artoificial caste like system on society were by we don't feel the need to reach out to others who don't share our aesthetic preferences, but that's as crazy as debunking someone elses language simply becasue we speak it. Afterall, buildings talk to us as much as cave paintings or an album cover. This isn't saying that "it's all good" or your taste is as good as mine, this simply means that we all speak our own dialect of a shared language, and if we are to be more responsive and thus possibly more respected , then it behoves us to listen more rather than try to preach.
If this idea where more widely accepted by architects, it would allow us to communicate much more directly and pleasurable with the public, allowing for as rich a reading of our built environment as we seem to get from our natural one. This dosen't mean we all have to design some tacky neo-victorian that Mr. Smith says "feels right", just don't be so quick to dismiss his feelings. Afterall, it's the variety in the natural environment that communicates health and sustainability, even though at tiimes, bleak landscapes can be breath takingly beautiful.
that happened because the public very clearly wanted to go to the interstate and buy crap from home depot and walmart. that's why home depot and walmart exist, and why downtown does not anymore. how do you explain that away, and say that all those people (the public) wanted to keep their local businesses downtown, but they just couldn't?
that's an oversimplification. Im sure there are people that can write books on whats wrong with that statement.
First, walmart is made possible by the car-centric infrastructure that was created at the top-down level and consequently the mom-pop shops were unable to compete in such a landscape.
"Bro"? Sounds like you are listening to the language of Walmart America! Oh, I get it... your being ironic. I'm the Walmart America your trying to put down. I finally got it.
urban form plays a big role in all of this. Do we see big box stores in nyc? how about rome?
Yes, you do. It's just that nyc and rome have been here longer than Phoenix or Dallas and have larger more established urban cores. But most people don't want to live in an urban core...
People don't live in urban cores because they are impractical, and they are simply not going to spend $500 bucks a square foot to build houses that please architects. Or pay the overhead for commercial buildings of this type.
Send me a link to your architect designed homes that cost less per square foot, or are at least comparable in cost to KB's cookie cutter boxes, then I will fully agree with your position.
Saying that the public wants the environment they get is like saying they want the politician they get
++ jla-x. Economic power - which translates directly into real power - does not reside with the masses.
that's why home depot and walmart exist
Economics are a huge driving force. Not just people looking for a bargain, but downward pressure on wages, big box stores undercutting mom and pop prices, multi-million dollar marketing campaigns, aggressive cross marketing, etc. This concentration of economic power has largely eliminated other choices in many suburban and rural areas.
In many communities here is often tremendous public resistance to big box stores - to no avail. Thus ++ jla-x.
there was actually a 'neighborhood' walmart that was going to move into my neighborhood, but there was a lot of public resistance. so the neighborhood walmart didn't move here.
"the public" made a choice. that's how it tends to happen in my experience.
Nice to hear from you again. I've missed your bro-philosophising.
" the public may dream of sitting in a grassy meadow surrounded by an old growth forest in the middle of venice"
How did you know? That's exactly what I dream about. How well you know the public.
"it's why the master-apprentice relationship has pretty much always existed."
Another attempt at irony maybe?
"the person who builds our designs can be a crazy good craftsman who pours their soul into their work to make beautiful things that will make women weep at even a passing glance. that doesn't make them architects."
Just like a self taught musician could make me weep at times. I'm all about weeping. I could go on, but I need to pick up a case of Coke at the local Walmart. So convenient.
When we read the title first time, we though it's about competition from civil engineers. But it's sad to see that the number of problems architects face are from the people whom they serve.
What do architects do anyways? Most of this stuff in the list from the article is about how uneducated the public is in the UK and doesn't work this way in the US where architects are basically drawing subcontractors. I made some comments in parenthesis, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
72% are unaware that architects apply for planning permission (if this means getting a building permit and/or zoning variance the client or contractor can do this, and most often does, an architect will likely provide drawings though.)
79% don’t know architects ensure buildings comply with health and safety legislation (which isn't true in the US, architects make sure the DRAWINGS of a building comply with health and safety, a small but significant difference)
86% have no idea architects select, negotiate with, and manage contractors (maybe they do, maybe not. Architects don't contract with contractors, they assist the owner with some of the tasks of selecting, negotiating with and managing the contractor.)
20% are unaware architects prepare construction drawings (I think the public thinks that the people who build the buildings are the same ones who do "construction drawings" which isn't false. Many contractors and subs redraw architects plans and make their own detailed construction drawings.)
9% DO understand architects control site budgets (sometimes, not what they are best known for, most have no training or understanding of the costs involved and on significant projects this is the job of the contractor or owner's project manager)
15% don’t know that architects design buildings
33.3% of over 55s were aware that architects prepare planning permissions, whereas: 14% of 18-24s were aware that architects prepare planning permissions
20% of young adults were aware that architects handle building control certificates and guarantees (like issuing a certificate of occupancy? in the US, the building department does this.)
Why would the public know more about what we do? Most architecture students don't know what architects do either.
Don't know what region you are working in 'there is no time', but what you described is nothing like it is here.
I submit planning packages for zoning/variance issues. I go to the hearings, etc.
I perform CA services that go well beyond building department inspections (which they hold no liability for). I have to provide a certificate at the end insuring the work was done in 'general conformance with the drawings'. I can be sued if I miss something or approve something that doesn't meet the code minimums.
I negiotiate on the owners behalf the contract with the contractor (or multiple ones if needed).
I've never seen a contractor redraw and create their own plans. Are you talking shop drawings, or do your drawings suck that bad that a contractor does them to make sense (hence why architects are seen as "just make it pretty")?
My design does control budget. (and often that works in reverse too..) I review pay applications, change orders, etc. btw; my powers are greater in this than the owner. If I say the charges are valid, by contract, the owner must pay regardless how they feel about it. During CA, per my license, I become a impartial 3rd party.
Building certificates. See above. We've also done commissioning, maintained warranty records, etc. Also, I'm on the hook for 7 years where the owner can sue for failures.
I didn't say architects weren't involved in those tasks, but they don't revolve around the architect. I've submitted stuff to zoning too, but there was a lot more to it than what the architect does in my experience, maybe the clients were more sophisticated than usual. The contractors almost always get the building permits. I have never done that.
Just touching on another thing, the architect is involved with the budget certainly, but they don't put together estimates, just saying. They aren't even supposed to, most don't have the skill to. I was on many jobs where the architect wasn't even privy to what the budget was, it was classified information.
Contractors create shop drawings yes, but they also create other drawings for themselves (used to work for a contractor, we did this, my father in law is a contractor and he does it.) And since you stooped to diss my skills personally, I had a guy (heavy timber supplier) call me once to say thank you because he didn't have any questions and that he understood my drawings perfectly, said they were among the best he'd ever seen and he rarely sees that anymore. He said it made his job so much easier because my drawings made so much sense.
Probably wasn't fair to dis you... just went off the idea that the drawings are so bad that the contractor has to develop his own set just to build. I've just never witnessed a contractor creating anything more than a thumbnail sketch to help them discuss with a sub-contractor how they might put that nasty area together if it wasn't specifically detailed on the drawings. But even that is rare in this day and age... They'll just shoot me a RFI (their favorite because of the paper), or we'll work it out in the field (my favorite) bouncing ideas off each other.
And I do estimates. Actually take some pride in the fact that when the bids come in, my number is right there in the middle. (I won't though for anything sub $2mil since that's a crap shoot). As for completeness of drawings, I weigh it on change orders and RFI's issued. We average 2% for change orders where 70% of those are Owner adds or upgrades as the contingency fund becomes available.
The drawing thing does tickle me back to my litigation work. One of the reasons architects aren't used and have a bad impression is that some of the drawings really do suck. I run across these all the time in litigation. A telltale of it is the "artist" mentally versus the "master builder"... just look at the section. If the effort was drawing up the interior elevation behind the section cut and the floor sandwich is blacked out and says "RE: Structural", you are dealing with a artist... Hence why they are being sued and the rest of our industry gets a "architects just make it pretty, engineers make it work, and contractors are the ones who get it done" reputation...
mightyaa, Do you agree that an architect who does estimates is kinda unusual? I learned to do estimates from a contractor when I was 20 and in my first architect intern job I did some of our estimates and almost always split the bids, I got good at it but lost the sense when I moved to a different market. The estimates we did at the architecture firm were always for in-house use, never to be considered real, just a spreadsheet with assumptions. They contractually didn't mean anything.
As for contractors drawing, this is copied from a contractor's website, I think it means they do drawings.
Building Information Management (BIM)
Our philosophy is to apply technology in ways that enhance our ability to deliver projects faster, more cost effectively and with a greater level of quality. Starting in preconstruction, we use BIM to visualize the work, quantify the scope and schedule the construction activities.
Starting in preconstruction, we use BIM to visualize the work, quantify the scope and schedule the construction activities. The technology is carried into the field where timely model information management help our field personnel get it right the first time through coordination of the building systems, prefabrication, efficient processing of shop drawings and RFIs, and quality control. Paperless technology and mobile devices allow us to instantly access the model in the field, enhancing quality, cost management and expediency.
BIM has many applications and we at Hensel Phelps expand the concept of virtual design and construction, utilizing it in four areas:
Use of the model as a building analytical tool for engineering and construction analysis applications early in the development of the design and construction work plan
Generation of and production of the building design information for pricing, permitting and construction documents
Creation of the Building Assembly Model for coordination, constructability, prefabrication and field operations
Development of a record model that can be used by the owner or building operator for building systems optimization and operations during warranty and facilities management during the life of the building.
This debate has been very interesting, and many salient points were mentioned. I was looking up labour statistics, and indeed, the salary for architects is disappointingly low in comparison with other professions. Similar debates such as this have also popped up around the internet. Yes, architecture is facing a 'silent war,' and I think the only solution is, really, through legislation. The analogy between medicine, law, architecture and other professional disciplines, such as engineering, may be banal, but it really illustrates how professional practices can diverge in many different ways. The reason why medicine and law have become so ubiquitous and therefore high-paying is because of the modern society necessitates their presence. Looking back into the past, medicine used to be practiced by barbers and quack-doctors – people who dispensed rubbish as cures. Similarly, lawyers could be anyone ranging from the run-off-the-mill citizen to an established politician, but could practice rhetoric.
For purposes of this, let us call doctors and their allied healthcare professions, 'healers,' and lawyers, paralegals, and so on, as 'lawmakers.' Architects, contractors and so on are 'builders'. The reason why a development similar to medicine and law did not occur in the field of architecture is due to the lack of enforcement in the responsibilities of those who are builders. Basically, contractors can overstep their profession's boundaries into the work of architects, and this achieves two things: (1) it reduces the perceived need for practicing architecture and with it lowers the economic demand, and (2) it eliminates the 'prestige' that so often accompanies professional degrees. Richard Petrie was right when he said that the public did not know acknowledge the responsibilities of the architect, which deals with public safety and health, responsibilities which are on par with medical and legal disciplines.
Here is the gist of my comment. By the mid-1600s, the medical and legal professions began to undergo a kind of public standardization because quack-cures and legal nonsense did not stand in good stead with people. If buildings started to collapse all of a sudden due to poor construction, a similar development would occur as well. But, as it is with the nature of 'architecture', many people can build things that do not collapse easily. Of course, I am not saying that architecture is not standardized or regulated. On the contrary, it is a very regulated and mature discipline, in all sense of professionalism. But! The main difference is that the regulation was not precipitated within the 'demand' portion of architecture, that is, the public. If the law requires all buildings to have an architecture's stamp and approval, this would have the same effect as removing all the quack-doctors and legal laymen who practiced a vulgar version of the art. And in effect, this would raise the economic prosperity of the architectural community.
I have much respect for architecture, even as I stand as a prospective post-grad student still considering my options. All talk of architecture as 'art' is nice, and fluffy stuff is always good and appreciated only when the grit of reality is taken care of. Yes, when a profession and its subject matter has become economically elevated to be on par with its theoretical worth, then can we respectfully engage in speaking of it as an 'art'. But on the whole, it is now impossible to use 'art' and 'aesthetics' as an impetus to increasing the monetary worth of architects, which should be way more than it currently is. People speak of medicine, surgery and litigation as an 'art' and rightfully celebrate it. There must come a time when the same praise should be heaped upon the architect's eye for technicality and safety. But this can only come when society lays down laws that necessitate the architect, and not an ambiguous relationship between contractor and architect. I believe architecture is a cornerstone of civilization, much as the other professions are. Petrie is also correct when he says that architecture lacks backing, both in demographic representation and economic ability. The solution is not clear now, of course, unless heavy lobbying is exerted to influence the law. The necessity of architecture is not immediately obvious to most people, not as intuitive as licensing a medical or legal practice. So, I guess, we are still waiting for that moment.
Some of you may not agree with what I think, but I look forward to it. Just my two cents worth.
Architects are facing a silent war
You can’t compare it to chefs. Imagine if a chef was forced to document all the ingredients like packaged food and all the nutritional information. So far, they just have to deal with health inspector, IRS, and some various other jurisdictions. I’d imagine the same effect of adding layers of paper to the act of creating: that the menu wouldn’t change very often. People aren’t going to pay more for that sandwich… So, you have to make cuts to remain profitable. That means less pay, more labor, less options for the same damn thing. Add something ‘revolutionary’ like some oven that cooks in half the time and people will also start demanding their food faster…. And at the same time, equating that means less work for you, so they want to pay even less than before. And maybe Bill’s BBQ sends it to you in some pretty packaging, so now your old waxed paper isn’t ‘cool enough’ for the customer… (note the food isn’t the problem). And on and on… higher expectations, more paperwork, and a fickle consumer who’d readily go somewhere else for any minor failure to meet their ever changing expectations.
That is our industry….
curtkram -
Do architects design buildings or do they conduct the project, framework, and coordination necessary to get buildings built? Or both? It seems like the former should involve at least a few incorporeal ideas or concerns - aesthetics, symbolism, metaphor, rhythm, pattern - while the latter truly is just about building buildings.
The problem with saying, " __________ is what architect's do." is that Architects and architects and designers do lots of jobs. Many times I find myself doing work that would traditionally be done in an architecture or planning office, yet I work in a design and fabrication oriented office. Lots of times, architects come to us with designs that are really more suited to our area of expertise - how dare they transgress the boundaries of practice and infringe on the design of something that is not a building! The nerve!
lets agree to disagree.
Curtkram-
I'm inclined to think that you have boiled this down a little too simply. To me, cooks cook food and chefs cook food well. It's the extra panache that they add that makes them chefs versus cooks. The cooking food is a base requirement I suppose but no one goes to a chef looking for cooked food that looks like cap and has terrible texture.
I think the problem is that people look to architects for something similar. Built buildings with just the bare minimum. That's how you get all the in house designers for developers. So perhaps designers design buildings and architects design buildings well? I don't think you can deny that architecture is both an art and a science just as I think you can't leave out the fact that building is the main thing going on. Perhaps we need to shift more of the balance between art and science to the science side these days as opposed to the art side but we can't eliminate it.
I certainly don't think we can keep building as we are now just because people love it. I think product design is a good analogy here. How many things do you find you love that did not exist 10 years ago? I love my laptop and need it but it didn't exist at the beginning of this century. So the question here perhaps is what is that same thing in architecture? We know it's not in super artistic buildings but I'm sure that the answer is not perpetuating the current situation by eliminating art from the profession and focusing "what architects do"
This has been debated at length:
Art vs. architecture
jla-x.
"Out compete the developers by offering better options to the public that are more in line with the only 3 things that matter in architecture. Style, theory, etc....all over the heads of the public. Build well and build beautiful. This is all that matters to anyone outside the profession."
I couldn't agree with you more. I'm always amazed that so many architects (at least fresh out of school) would look disdainfully at the idea of working for or with a builder. There's so much work to be had if one bothers to learn about a builder's priorities like picking plastic trim so they won't have to come back in 3 years to replace the wide grain sap wood. Only when you learn to speak the builders language can you influence him in to reducing the seven gables to 2 or three. Who knows, you might even make our sluburbs more beautiful while advocating well build buildings when you know how to explain their effects on a good selling home. Firmness, commodity, and delight.
curtkram,
"This 'architect as artist' is absolutely, unequivocally, not true. not even a little bit. there isn't even a shred of anything realistic in that statement."
Did you ever take a class on the history of architecture or did you look at those class as a window into an alien world? When people admire something, they tend to do it with their eyes first, kind of like when I met my wife. You should see my yard, it's an environmental wet dream with all the years refuse going right back into the beds once fully composted, not a chemical in sight. But do you think that's what makes me the happiest reading my sunday papers on the porch? We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
"the problem with pretending architecture is some sort of 'art' is that a lot people who really suck at art think they're good. so they make their little crayon sketches on napkins and hand them off to someone who actually has to do real work"
And you sound like the person most qualified to judge what art sucks? Plus, I've never seen crayon sketches passed of as well thougth out design, unless it's by those theoretical archtiects who look down their noses the most.
"jla, i can't help but think that if you're that much of an artist you would have a profile on here with some pics to show off the work you've done."
Did it occure to you that one dosen''t need to show off their work to make a point? Again, would you be the judge of what you believed is "artistic"? After saying "get rid of the architects who want to be artists," that's not much of a taunt.
As for your conflating the "art" of architecture with "just flowery bullshit"...WOW! This is the kind of additude that leads to our bad reputation, as if striving for beauty is sissy stuff. You seem angst ridden about stuff that comes so naturally to humans, the persuit of beauty. And to intimate that one can't do this while solving a myriad of other problems is all the more depressing. All this macho talk about flowery bullshit. I can't imagine thinking like that when my kids show me their drawings, definatly my daughter's. Then again, your additudes toward "the public" are well documented.
http://archinect.com/forum/thread/84759019/why-won-t-you-design-what-we-the-public-want"
"I know many many people from non-arch backgrounds (blue collar people) that express complete disgust for this crap scape that dominates the built environment."
And how many think architects are responsible for the crapscape?
The most illuminating critique of a building comes from the occupants after a year or so, and has nothing to do with awards, articles and published photos, fancy materials, pretty plans, intellectual justifications (a.k.a. bullshit rhetoric), return on investment, etc.
Please refer to the previously cited thread if you insist on continuing down the 'architecture is art' path. We've been down this road before.
It's amazing to me that most of the comments on here completely missed the point of the article. Not only has the "architecture is art" debate been beaten to death, it has very little to do with the financial position of the profession. That is what the article is pointing out. The author's conclusions clearly state that:
Step number 1 is to believe in the value you bring to your clients. This battle is won in your own heart and your own mind. Are you willing to stand up for what you are worth?
In shorthand: stop taking lousy fees. If you bring something of true economic value, you should be paid for it.
Step number 2 is to communicate that value to your clients in a way that they can understand.
This is the difficult one. Most people admire, and possibly desire, the work of an architect. Whether they are willing to pay for it is something else. They need some type of incentive to spend money for our services. This is where the "art" argument becomes meaningless. In a culture of "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" and Walmart, how many people really understand design, let alone would spend their hard-earned money on it? Architecture schools and the AIA must come out of their bubble if they are to develop architects with skills that others will pay for.
Architects who have the luxury of having wealthy connections and trust funds don't need to care about the money. Academic theorists and "being poor = artistic integrity" types will never see beyond their self-righteousness. It's the average who will have to change the profession.
Well said!
desdesign: "Most other professional organizations, certainly the AMA and the ABA, have strong lobbies. Outside of printing contracts and handing out awards the AIA is useless."
Just for the sake of argument, let's assume this to be a valid criticism. If so, let's also consider for a moment why this situation might exist.
First of all, let's review some rough numbers pulled from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the websites of the professional associations in question.
Employment: (Licensed professionals - 2012)
. 107,400 - Architects
. 592,670 - Lawyers
. 691,400 - Physicians and Surgeons
Membership:
. 83,000 - American Institute of Architects
. 400,000 - American Bar Association
. 217,490 - American Medical Association
Although we might wish otherwise, "lobbying" is all about throwing money at elected officials to get their attention and support. Given the numbers shown above, our profession simply doesn't have sufficient size (and therefore sufficient economic clout) to lobby effectively.
It's also interesting to note the following related numbers:
. 1,042,231 - membership of the National Association of Realtors
. 140,000 - member firms in the Association of General Contractors
. 140,000 member firms in the National Association of Home Builders
It's a numbers game, guys -- and we're on the small end of that spectrum. Moreover, as is asked here repeatedly, do we really want to keep increasing our numbers and further increase the amount of competition we face every day?
It's a difficult problem.
desdesign,
"Most people ...need some type of incentive to spend money for our services. This is where the "art" argument becomes meaningless. In a culture of "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" and Walmart, how many people really understand design, let alone would spend their hard-earned money on it? Architecture schools and the AIA must come out of their bubble if they are to develop architects with skills that others will pay for."
What you call the culture of the Kardashians has always been with us and always will. Even those of us who consider ourselves above that culture will indulge in the pure pleasure of the superficial, so to wish it away or to brand our culture 2 dimensionally isn't accurate. As for how many people understand design, how can you say that when most architects can't even agree on the meaning of design, nor should they have to. I'd say most of the public is probably more in accord as to what "design" means and it's us architects who have deconstructed it's meaning in to a relative soup of atomic particles. It's always easier to deconstruct than it is to construct. People pay for design all the time, it just might not be your taste. That's why the constant segregating our profession from WalMart America does nobody any favors. It's too simplistic and it won't help us secure more money from our customers. Some of us don't have an option but to take "lousy fees", and as jla-x rightly pointed out a while back, if you don't think the public imagines us as artistic engineers at best, then you are living in a different culture than I am. Any builder can build a sound shelter, it's the artistic (not conceptual or theoretical) aspect why "most people admire, and possibly desire, the work of an architect."
well said Thayer-D!
We do have the option of not taking lousy fees. If there is nothing that can be changed about the current situation, then why discuss it all? If you just want to go online and bitch, then save us the time.
I'd say most of the public is probably more in accord as to what "design" means and it's us architects who have deconstructed it's meaning in to a relative soup of atomic particles.
Seriously?? Where do you live? The public's idea of good design is "enough parking".
If you really believe that the public has a better grasp on design than architects, then why are you an architect? Why would, as you say, anyone value the "artistic" skills of architects?
if you don't think the public imagines us as artistic engineers at best, then you are living in a different culture than I am. Any builder can build a sound shelter, it's the artistic (not conceptual or theoretical) aspect why "most people admire, and possibly desire, the work of an architect."
Did you read the article's description of the public's perceptions? They don't have any idea what architects do. Let's face it, most people would be bewildered if they sat in on an architectural critique. The typical person (who is middle to lower class) will not understand what is "artistic". I come from a lower-middle class background and my relatives would have know idea what good architecture/design is. Even the people I know who are educated and successful only buy their homes based on square footage and brand-name appliances. Don't give the average citizen to much credit when it comes to taste.
The public's idea of good design is "enough parking".
Good design anticipates and serves required needs. In an automobile-based society failure to provide enough parking is a major failure. Of course automobile-based society is itself a major failure. Thank Henry Ford for buying up street car companies and shutting them down.
The typical person (who is middle to lower class) will not understand what is "artistic".
Bullshit. People who actually work for a living - especially people who make or service things - understand and appreciate the value of art and craftsmanship far more than those who simply buy it for status or investment value.
Don't give the average citizen to much credit when it comes to taste.
Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. That you don't like someone else's doesn't mean yours is better than theirs. If your subjective aesthetics are the most important aspect of your architecture you are the problem, not the solution.
Really Miles? I'm talking about the average person living in lower class suburbs outside of Cleveland or Topeka. Not the folks you see in the Hamptons.
People who make or service things. Huh. I'm sure you've hung out with a lot of auto-workers and McDonald's managers, you know people who work for a living. I've read your bio and looked at your website. Don't pretend that you aren't just another sheltered trust-fund kid who does architecture as a hobby, and not as a way of putting food on the table.
A sense of aesthetics is the only thing that separates architects from the construction managers and developers that architects are always griping about. If you didn't develop, or at least fine-tune, a sense of aesthetics at RISD you kind of wasted Daddy's money. And you basically negate the whole purpose of design education if you say that everyone's aesthetic is equally valid. That's the most false and illegitimate type of egalitarianism.
what on earth would make you think an auto worker doesn't have good taste, or the ability craft really amazing stuff? they actually build stuff instead of sitting in a studio pining away about how their intellectual version of a pseudo-utopia isn't happening while pretending to read derrida.
And you basically negate the whole purpose of design education if you say that everyone's aesthetic is equally valid.
Some guys like skinny chicks, some guys like chubby chicks. Some guys like nice chicks regardless of what they look like. Which is the correct aesthetic - the one you decide? LOL Maybe your education isn't all it's cracked up to be, or you missed the point of it, or the cup was already full.
The typical person (who is middle to lower class) will not understand what is "artistic".
That's the most false and illegitimate type of egalitarianism.
Agreed.
I come from a lower-middle class background and my relatives would have know idea what good architecture/design is.
But you do - how on Earth is that possible? (pssst ... "no idea")
Even the people I know who are educated and successful only buy their homes based on square footage and brand-name appliances. Don't give the average citizen to much credit when it comes to taste.
So it's not just the poor and stupid who are aesthetically impaired, but also the wealthy and educated? Or is it just those who have different tastes from yours?
You're off to a great start with your first four posts here on Archinect. Please, please keep going! I can't wait to see just how far you can jam your head up your own ass .
The double slit experiment shows us that the observer matters.
I think you mean the double twit experiment.
I'm talking about the average person living in lower class suburbs outside of Cleveland or Topeka.....and McDonald's managers
Have you seen the new McDonald's building design standard? it's actually kind of nice.
Anyway - There is a looming crisis for drive-only suburbia - which will become really apparent once a critical mass of boomers are no longer able to care for themselves (likely within the next decade). I'm guessing we're going to be much less concerned about whether or not the average person understands "aesthetics" than we are with helping figure out how to retrofit a lot of our infrastructure and built environment to accommodate more equitable and cost effective forms of mobility.
I don't know how it is where you are, but where I am, we don't see much suburban work around anymore.
Saying that the public wants the environment they get is like saying they want the politician they get The limited options available provide a very poor window into "what they really want". The job of the creative is not to determine what they want but rather to create options that they could either choose or not. Those options can be designed with a hypothesis of what people want, but we really don't know until we test it out. If only 2 drinks existed (coke or Pepsi) we will always conclude that the public loves cola when in fact they may just be settling for the least disliked option. My basic point is that architects have failed to create new options that are accessible and competitive.
Most people want and understand quality. Most people want beautiful and interesting things. People universally love Central Park and hate parking lots. People love fountains, people love trees lined streets. They may not care about the historical and philosophical roots of a certain place, but they easily get the difference between quality and crap and between pleasurable places and not pleasurable ones. If this was not true, people would not gravitate to similar "tourist" spots. These places IMO are desired for their really basic fundamental qualities, walk ability, natural beauty, scale, etc. I don't claim to know the specifics, but there is a good reason (an architectural reason) why people gravitate towards certain places.
You don't need to be a geologist to appreciate the Grand Canyon.
jla, i'm pretty sure what they really want is the path of least resistance. they want cheap, fast, and easy.
there was a time when we had downtown areas with small grocers and hardware stores. then home depot and walmart moved to the interstate, and everyone (the public) started going to the interstate to buy stuff. the businesses in downtown had to close shop because they weren't selling stuff anymore. (as a side note, downtown was, of course, not really that well designed or built. viewing a romanticized past might make it look that way, but they built the way they knew how with the materials they had.)
that happened because the public very clearly wanted to go to the interstate and buy crap from home depot and walmart. that's why home depot and walmart exist, and why downtown does not anymore. how do you explain that away, and say that all those people (the public) wanted to keep their local businesses downtown, but they just couldn't?
my mom cooked when i was kid, despite the fact she put in long hours and was probably pretty tired at the end of the day. at that time having her cook for my siblings and i was a preferable option to going to mcdonalds. now, since mcdonalds has become cheaper and more accessible, you pointed out your sister takes her kids there instead of cooking for them. your sister still has the option to cook for her kids the way your parents did and the way my parents did, but she chose the path of least resistance. it would be very inconvenient for her to take the time to cook what you grew up on, and it would probably cost more.
also, the public does not hate parking lots. the public wants to drive to the parking lot because it's easier and faster. the parking lot is there because it's the path of least resistance. the public may dream of sitting in a grassy meadow surrounded by an old growth forest in the middle of venice, but few people will give up the convenience of a car and bright city lights and such to make that happen. people only enjoy those historic places for a few days at a time, but they want to get back to their preservative-laden bread that can sit on a shelf for 2 weeks because having to go to the baker every single morning is just too inconvenient. that preservative laden bread is also a lot cheaper, because stuff that goes bad tends to get thrown out at the store.
it's great if you want to pour your soul into your work and all that. more people should care about what they do. but that doesn't make you an architect. contractors, builders, framers, etc. can all pour their soul into the work they do. that doesn't make them architects either. if you don't know how to be an architect first - or if you don't know how to design a building - then it doesn't matter how much you care about what you do or how devoted you are to pouring your soul into your work. you're not going to be a good architect until you know how to design a building. that's why real-life experience can't be replaced, no matter how much you want it to. it's why the master-apprentice relationship has pretty much always existed.
you said earlier:
Building competent buildings that don't fall down is the bare minimum. Building places that people love and cherish is the only skill we have (or should have) that makes us special from engineers, contractors, building designers
architects don't build buildings. that's what separates us from contractors. architects design buildings. designing a building that is competent and won't fall down is the bare minimum for an architect. the person who builds our designs can be a crazy good craftsman who pours their soul into their work to make beautiful things that will make women weep at even a passing glance. that doesn't make them architects. pretending their ability or contribution is someone reduced because they don't carry the title architect is just wrong.
jla-x, there's not much more to add to your absolutely clear analysis, but it's thought inspiring. All I know is this superiority additude is very stuborn. It's obviously endemic to us as we rely on organizing information to navigate our world and inevitably assign value as our culture or we see fit. Infact, the earliest signs of symbolic non-verbal communication are stones and beads decorated with geometric scratches found when humanity was crowded on the shores of South Africa some 60-100K years ago, struggling to survive from massive climate change, so my guess is, it's as old as we are modern humans.
Maybe the fear of being in the minority opinion or being seen as a rube pushes many of us to impose this artoificial caste like system on society were by we don't feel the need to reach out to others who don't share our aesthetic preferences, but that's as crazy as debunking someone elses language simply becasue we speak it. Afterall, buildings talk to us as much as cave paintings or an album cover. This isn't saying that "it's all good" or your taste is as good as mine, this simply means that we all speak our own dialect of a shared language, and if we are to be more responsive and thus possibly more respected , then it behoves us to listen more rather than try to preach.
If this idea where more widely accepted by architects, it would allow us to communicate much more directly and pleasurable with the public, allowing for as rich a reading of our built environment as we seem to get from our natural one. This dosen't mean we all have to design some tacky neo-victorian that Mr. Smith says "feels right", just don't be so quick to dismiss his feelings. Afterall, it's the variety in the natural environment that communicates health and sustainability, even though at tiimes, bleak landscapes can be breath takingly beautiful.
...
bro
do you even design?
^--- that's a new meme. you saw it here first.
You're welcome.
that happened because the public very clearly wanted to go to the interstate and buy crap from home depot and walmart. that's why home depot and walmart exist, and why downtown does not anymore. how do you explain that away, and say that all those people (the public) wanted to keep their local businesses downtown, but they just couldn't?
that's an oversimplification. Im sure there are people that can write books on whats wrong with that statement.
First, walmart is made possible by the car-centric infrastructure that was created at the top-down level and consequently the mom-pop shops were unable to compete in such a landscape.
urban form plays a big role in all of this. Do we see big box stores in nyc? how about rome?
"Bro"? Sounds like you are listening to the language of Walmart America! Oh, I get it... your being ironic. I'm the Walmart America your trying to put down. I finally got it.
urban form plays a big role in all of this. Do we see big box stores in nyc? how about rome?
Yes, you do. It's just that nyc and rome have been here longer than Phoenix or Dallas and have larger more established urban cores. But most people don't want to live in an urban core...
People don't live in urban cores because they are impractical, and they are simply not going to spend $500 bucks a square foot to build houses that please architects. Or pay the overhead for commercial buildings of this type.
Send me a link to your architect designed homes that cost less per square foot, or are at least comparable in cost to KB's cookie cutter boxes, then I will fully agree with your position.
Oh, I get it... your being ironic
lol. no.
Saying that the public wants the environment they get is like saying they want the politician they get
++ jla-x. Economic power - which translates directly into real power - does not reside with the masses.
that's why home depot and walmart exist
Economics are a huge driving force. Not just people looking for a bargain, but downward pressure on wages, big box stores undercutting mom and pop prices, multi-million dollar marketing campaigns, aggressive cross marketing, etc. This concentration of economic power has largely eliminated other choices in many suburban and rural areas.
In many communities here is often tremendous public resistance to big box stores - to no avail. Thus ++ jla-x.
there was actually a 'neighborhood' walmart that was going to move into my neighborhood, but there was a lot of public resistance. so the neighborhood walmart didn't move here.
"the public" made a choice. that's how it tends to happen in my experience.
We haven't been able to stop any major development. Or minor one. But a local trying to get a variance is raked over the coals.
curtkram,
Nice to hear from you again. I've missed your bro-philosophising.
" the public may dream of sitting in a grassy meadow surrounded by an old growth forest in the middle of venice"
How did you know? That's exactly what I dream about. How well you know the public.
"it's why the master-apprentice relationship has pretty much always existed."
Another attempt at irony maybe?
"the person who builds our designs can be a crazy good craftsman who pours their soul into their work to make beautiful things that will make women weep at even a passing glance. that doesn't make them architects."
Just like a self taught musician could make me weep at times. I'm all about weeping. I could go on, but I need to pick up a case of Coke at the local Walmart. So convenient.
Remeber, real Bro's don't cry.
When we read the title first time, we though it's about competition from civil engineers. But it's sad to see that the number of problems architects face are from the people whom they serve.
What do architects do anyways? Most of this stuff in the list from the article is about how uneducated the public is in the UK and doesn't work this way in the US where architects are basically drawing subcontractors. I made some comments in parenthesis, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Why would the public know more about what we do? Most architecture students don't know what architects do either.
So the British population is stupider than US architecture students?
Don't know what region you are working in 'there is no time', but what you described is nothing like it is here.
I submit planning packages for zoning/variance issues. I go to the hearings, etc.
I perform CA services that go well beyond building department inspections (which they hold no liability for). I have to provide a certificate at the end insuring the work was done in 'general conformance with the drawings'. I can be sued if I miss something or approve something that doesn't meet the code minimums.
I negiotiate on the owners behalf the contract with the contractor (or multiple ones if needed).
I've never seen a contractor redraw and create their own plans. Are you talking shop drawings, or do your drawings suck that bad that a contractor does them to make sense (hence why architects are seen as "just make it pretty")?
My design does control budget. (and often that works in reverse too..) I review pay applications, change orders, etc. btw; my powers are greater in this than the owner. If I say the charges are valid, by contract, the owner must pay regardless how they feel about it. During CA, per my license, I become a impartial 3rd party.
Building certificates. See above. We've also done commissioning, maintained warranty records, etc. Also, I'm on the hook for 7 years where the owner can sue for failures.
I didn't say architects weren't involved in those tasks, but they don't revolve around the architect. I've submitted stuff to zoning too, but there was a lot more to it than what the architect does in my experience, maybe the clients were more sophisticated than usual. The contractors almost always get the building permits. I have never done that.
Just touching on another thing, the architect is involved with the budget certainly, but they don't put together estimates, just saying. They aren't even supposed to, most don't have the skill to. I was on many jobs where the architect wasn't even privy to what the budget was, it was classified information.
Contractors create shop drawings yes, but they also create other drawings for themselves (used to work for a contractor, we did this, my father in law is a contractor and he does it.) And since you stooped to diss my skills personally, I had a guy (heavy timber supplier) call me once to say thank you because he didn't have any questions and that he understood my drawings perfectly, said they were among the best he'd ever seen and he rarely sees that anymore. He said it made his job so much easier because my drawings made so much sense.
Probably wasn't fair to dis you... just went off the idea that the drawings are so bad that the contractor has to develop his own set just to build. I've just never witnessed a contractor creating anything more than a thumbnail sketch to help them discuss with a sub-contractor how they might put that nasty area together if it wasn't specifically detailed on the drawings. But even that is rare in this day and age... They'll just shoot me a RFI (their favorite because of the paper), or we'll work it out in the field (my favorite) bouncing ideas off each other.
And I do estimates. Actually take some pride in the fact that when the bids come in, my number is right there in the middle. (I won't though for anything sub $2mil since that's a crap shoot). As for completeness of drawings, I weigh it on change orders and RFI's issued. We average 2% for change orders where 70% of those are Owner adds or upgrades as the contingency fund becomes available.
The drawing thing does tickle me back to my litigation work. One of the reasons architects aren't used and have a bad impression is that some of the drawings really do suck. I run across these all the time in litigation. A telltale of it is the "artist" mentally versus the "master builder"... just look at the section. If the effort was drawing up the interior elevation behind the section cut and the floor sandwich is blacked out and says "RE: Structural", you are dealing with a artist... Hence why they are being sued and the rest of our industry gets a "architects just make it pretty, engineers make it work, and contractors are the ones who get it done" reputation...
mightyaa, Do you agree that an architect who does estimates is kinda unusual? I learned to do estimates from a contractor when I was 20 and in my first architect intern job I did some of our estimates and almost always split the bids, I got good at it but lost the sense when I moved to a different market. The estimates we did at the architecture firm were always for in-house use, never to be considered real, just a spreadsheet with assumptions. They contractually didn't mean anything.
As for contractors drawing, this is copied from a contractor's website, I think it means they do drawings.
Building Information Management (BIM)
Our philosophy is to apply technology in ways that enhance our ability to deliver projects faster, more cost effectively and with a greater level of quality. Starting in preconstruction, we use BIM to visualize the work, quantify the scope and schedule the construction activities.
Starting in preconstruction, we use BIM to visualize the work, quantify the scope and schedule the construction activities. The technology is carried into the field where timely model information management help our field personnel get it right the first time through coordination of the building systems, prefabrication, efficient processing of shop drawings and RFIs, and quality control. Paperless technology and mobile devices allow us to instantly access the model in the field, enhancing quality, cost management and expediency.
BIM has many applications and we at Hensel Phelps expand the concept of virtual design and construction, utilizing it in four areas:
Nice black hole for architects in budgets and estimates, with juicy liability.
Yes Miles, maybe mightyaa will fill us in on how he does it.
^
This debate has been very interesting, and many salient points were mentioned. I was looking up labour statistics, and indeed, the salary for architects is disappointingly low in comparison with other professions. Similar debates such as this have also popped up around the internet. Yes, architecture is facing a 'silent war,' and I think the only solution is, really, through legislation. The analogy between medicine, law, architecture and other professional disciplines, such as engineering, may be banal, but it really illustrates how professional practices can diverge in many different ways. The reason why medicine and law have become so ubiquitous and therefore high-paying is because of the modern society necessitates their presence. Looking back into the past, medicine used to be practiced by barbers and quack-doctors – people who dispensed rubbish as cures. Similarly, lawyers could be anyone ranging from the run-off-the-mill citizen to an established politician, but could practice rhetoric.
For purposes of this, let us call doctors and their allied healthcare professions, 'healers,' and lawyers, paralegals, and so on, as 'lawmakers.' Architects, contractors and so on are 'builders'. The reason why a development similar to medicine and law did not occur in the field of architecture is due to the lack of enforcement in the responsibilities of those who are builders. Basically, contractors can overstep their profession's boundaries into the work of architects, and this achieves two things: (1) it reduces the perceived need for practicing architecture and with it lowers the economic demand, and (2) it eliminates the 'prestige' that so often accompanies professional degrees. Richard Petrie was right when he said that the public did not know acknowledge the responsibilities of the architect, which deals with public safety and health, responsibilities which are on par with medical and legal disciplines.
Here is the gist of my comment. By the mid-1600s, the medical and legal professions began to undergo a kind of public standardization because quack-cures and legal nonsense did not stand in good stead with people. If buildings started to collapse all of a sudden due to poor construction, a similar development would occur as well. But, as it is with the nature of 'architecture', many people can build things that do not collapse easily. Of course, I am not saying that architecture is not standardized or regulated. On the contrary, it is a very regulated and mature discipline, in all sense of professionalism. But! The main difference is that the regulation was not precipitated within the 'demand' portion of architecture, that is, the public. If the law requires all buildings to have an architecture's stamp and approval, this would have the same effect as removing all the quack-doctors and legal laymen who practiced a vulgar version of the art. And in effect, this would raise the economic prosperity of the architectural community.
I have much respect for architecture, even as I stand as a prospective post-grad student still considering my options. All talk of architecture as 'art' is nice, and fluffy stuff is always good and appreciated only when the grit of reality is taken care of. Yes, when a profession and its subject matter has become economically elevated to be on par with its theoretical worth, then can we respectfully engage in speaking of it as an 'art'. But on the whole, it is now impossible to use 'art' and 'aesthetics' as an impetus to increasing the monetary worth of architects, which should be way more than it currently is. People speak of medicine, surgery and litigation as an 'art' and rightfully celebrate it. There must come a time when the same praise should be heaped upon the architect's eye for technicality and safety. But this can only come when society lays down laws that necessitate the architect, and not an ambiguous relationship between contractor and architect. I believe architecture is a cornerstone of civilization, much as the other professions are. Petrie is also correct when he says that architecture lacks backing, both in demographic representation and economic ability. The solution is not clear now, of course, unless heavy lobbying is exerted to influence the law. The necessity of architecture is not immediately obvious to most people, not as intuitive as licensing a medical or legal practice. So, I guess, we are still waiting for that moment.
Some of you may not agree with what I think, but I look forward to it. Just my two cents worth.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.