First of all, stop using the f....ed up architecture language. Architects love to use difficult words and terms, but it doesn't mean shit and doesn't contribute a damn thing to the profession. Just read the following quote: “”¦..This is the essential topology that structures the rhetoric of the symbols-allegory opposition as well as that of bourgeois subjectivity and its interiority pathos of exteriority. Against it, a pathos or of surface emerges in Modernism: it revalorizes allegory in all its theatricality”¦.”. Now you tell me, is this sentence trying to say something or trying to make architecture look more sophisticated? I guess people just want to hear, “miss, you have cancer and I'm going to make you better”. That simple.
Practice what you preach. If you don't like McMansions and don't want to design them, don't life in them. Don't tried to convince a client the importance of an expensive high tech fully glassed façade that will improve the working condition in an office building if you as an architect work in an old garage with no windows. It doesn'r make you credible.
Last but not least. It is easy to make money in architecture. If clients don't agree with your fee, just ask them politely how much they pay their lawyer, accountant or broker. My cousins who works for a crappy law firm, sees architecture as a goldmine. As a lawyer, it is even more difficult to justify the fee. Lawyers don't have the amount of education and training required, they don't have to invest an enormous amount of money in hard/software, they don't have a highly trained and educated staff like in an architectural firm and they sure as hell don't work the amount of hours architects do. Showing the client what your overhead costs are, your educational and training background, the service he gets and what he normally pays for other services (law and finance) is enough to put him over the edge.
I would also add market yourself to that list. I would not mind seeing billboards for ordinary architectural services or glossy ad's in the pages of "Town and Country" or "Forbes". Let's be honest, that's what our clients read, why not try to get them through advertising like Ralph Lauren or Kate Spade do?
the problem is that it is easy to see a lawyers worth, if you have a 20 million dollar lawsuit against you and you pay your lawyer 1 million and he gets you to win, he saved you 19 million. Architecture is harder to show, I think the most important thing is to show the economic benifits of good design, I think there are some business week/some arch magazine award that might be good to show clients the direct correlation between good design and profits.
With the holiday weekend coming up many stores will be closed- you should make sure to stock up on your "happy" pill medicine. You dont want to run out of your medicine like you did today. Please, for everyones good, including your own, make that trip to the pharmacy and get your pills stocked.
I shall prevaricate architecturaly obfuscatory erudition and prevail upon you to:
I think you need to moderate your langauge usage, but I don't think you should talk like a carpenter. Sometimes it takes a well thought out explanation to get someone to understand the archticture. That may mean that they'll have to read it a few times, but if it's a good explanation and the work good, then it'll be time well spent.
You could look at literature, where, many times, you'll have to read things several times to fully appreciate it. Same goes for art, and even music (and lyrics).
I don't think you should sell your architecture as a one liner....unless it is a one liner.
That said, the goal is still business and good salesmanship. This means giving your clients an intellectual explanation that can be understood.
I just hate to see architecture as a generalized business. It's not. It's diverse and there are good architects and far more bad ones.
I wish the solution to the money woes would be as simple as a bill board, but it's not. The public needs to know the difference between good design and bad design, between a good architect and a bad architect.
I think a better answer would be teaming architecture with the mafia. If the clients don't want to pay my fee I've got a huge guy named Tony that would like to meet them.
If your goal is to make money then perhaps a more aggressive marketing campaign would be in order. It's true for nearly any business. A guy like James Sokolove advertises his legal services on billboards and late night TV commercials. However the superstars of law like Gerhragoes or Cochranan market themselves by taking on high profile cases (Jackson, Simpson, Peterson) which land them spots on the evening news. Why can't the same be true for design? If you simply need a new apartment makeover then perhaps you can market yourselves in the Village Voice or Craigslist but if your designing museums then the marketing comes for free by being published. If you want to do high end residental then maybe you should drop 15,000 for a full page spread in the Bergdoff catalog.
Furthermore I don't think we need to teach the public about good and bad design. These kind of things sort themselves out over time and clearly we are swimming upstream. The "public" has chosen the designs it likes through the purchasing decisions they make. And as Deleuze once said (paraphrasing) you can either fight the force of the wave or ride it your own way.
As a service industry, architecture is not that different as accounting, law or even the medical field.
In terms of design, architects are almost the same as industrial designers, graphic designer, even fashion designers.
As artist, architects may have the love for architecture, as painters and sculptors do for art or musicians do for music.
Why does a painter ask $4500 for his painting? Because he thinks that the painting is worth is and not because of its market value.
My point is that most people (especially those in the creative fields) in general, don’t do it for the money. But they are aware of the fact that they need to put bread on the table. Nobody, how artistically ones profession is, works for free. It is known that architects are extremely allergic to money, which explains the hostility towards money talk in the industry. So for the few architects that are the breadwinners of the family, just do what you got to do to the make the paper, think like a lawyer or any other profession for that matter, and forget all the ethics of architecture.
I once read in the back of one of those arts weekly papers an advertisemnt that read, "I may be a whore but im also a classy escort. I'll take you to the top of the world."
...Sorry, i think i may have read that in one of the design trade rags.
some people need to be spoken to like that, others just feel humiliated by it. if you can read people quickly, learn to speak their language and LISTEN you'll be okay.
JG - I don't mean, necessarily, that we should educate the public about good or bad design, because you are correct, the market will sort itself. But what I don't like is simply the idea to 'market all architects', because it will not help good design, or more talented architects, receive more attention, and, in turn, more money.
I do think that there should be a difference in fees based on the particular architect. It is so generalized now that most ask the same amount, regardless of talent or skill.
I hope this is changing, and I am personally seeing some nice opportunities for marketing talent and skill, versus plain experience or simply providing the basic services. It does, as le bossman points out, come down to the client. If the client can be convinced good design is better for their business, then mission accomplished.
The market(s) will decide if good design is worth more money, and so far, it is proving that (finally).
having worked in a number of design professions, my experience has been that most architects under value their services. granted, the money involved in created a piece of architecture costs a lot more than a product, piece of software, website, or printed brochure and thus many may feel the need to low ball the price just to get the job, but in the long run this is unhealthy for the individual, the firm, and the profession.
some designers/architects i've worked with would only log 8 hours on their timesheet daily even if they worked 12. this is bad because when your bosses go back to look at the number of hours it took to complete a job in order to bid on the next similar job, they are faced, maybe unknowingly, with false information thus the designers are only screwing themselves in the future. the excuse for doing this was that they would look good to their boss by, on paper only, getting the job done within the alotted hours. another i heard was that my boss just doesn't tolerate overtime. all around bad excuses.
it just amazes me that most graphic designers get paid more and are more profitable than most architects. creating a bad piece of print design won't kill anyone and will be thrown away within 6 months. create a bad piece of architecture and you are stuck with it and people can possibly die. architects need to work to fix this wrong.
it is not only the graphic designers, but all designers, business people, medical professionals, bootleg dvd salesman ect. value correct or even overvalue their services. I believe that is not the general publics vault for the bad pay. Architects are their own enemy. So it doesn't amaze me at all when the regional manager of McDonalds who started of flipping burgers end up with a 6 figure salary. It is human nature to want to be financial independen.
But who are we kidding. Maybe we are the drugaddicts of the whole design/service community.
How can architects get free press? When we have projects published in the paper for instance, the article goes on and on and never mentions the architect and if it says anything about the design it is so childish and not interesting. The articles are always about the client and the need for the space, where the money comes from etc. Shoudn't the architect get mentioned at least? ...building designed by ABC Architects... would go great in the first sentence or two and that's all I'm asking for. The client takes credit for the project (rightfully) and in doing so, fails to give credit for the design. Or maybe the client senses that since they paid for the design, there is no need to mention the architect.
Does your firm get free press? I have rarely seen it that the architect gets mention in such publications such as the newspaper.
How does an architecture firm seek free press?
On a simlar note, yet off on a tangent... I did several renderings (thru my firm) for a video promoting some college campus improvements to get dollars from alumni. The film was put together by a film maker (who did Disney's Treasure Island) and I recently heard that the film won a competition. Us, the architects, did not recieve credit for our renderings in any way shape or form in the video. The credits only include the film maker. The renderings made up a sizeable contribution to the film. What is up with that?
Strawberry - you need to request that in your contract. I've received a bunch of free press by simply requesting that they give me credit. I've yet to have anyone even think twice. It's business, people are paying for my services, and if they like them, they should be happy to help me out.
Architects rarely get credit, but design firms don't have their name after the MTV promo, or whatever. But those fields have shown that good design is good for their clients business. Good design = money. If you can get that across, then people will gladly pay more.
Again, and I hate to keep going back to this, but I think a fundamental problem in architecture is that there is little distinction between 'good' and 'bad'. There's the stararchitects, but beyond that it's a mishmosh (that a word?).
It's hard to convince the public that 'architects' should get paid more, when I even cringe at some of the stuff that is produced, including things with large budgets.
Us architects can't even agree on who is good and who isn't. Meier and Gehry? I think their great arhcitects and savvy businessmen, people that we should be looking to for strategies. They've shown that good design does sell, and it does make money, and their styles couldn't be more different.
I think other professions acknowledge who is good, who to look to for inspiration, etc., more so than architecture. Motion graphis? MK12 will get a nod from most. Web design? Group94 would get that nod. Etc., etc.
In graphics, there are firms that are doing great stuff and they command fees in relation to their skills.
It all comes back to is good design good business? If we can answer that, or if architecture can (as I am more on the graphics side these days), then there will be progress.
Strawberry - you need to request that in your contract. I've received a bunch of free press by simply requesting that they give me credit. I've yet to have anyone even think twice. It's business, people are paying for my services, and if they like them, they should be happy to help me out.
Architects rarely get credit, but design firms don't have their name after the MTV promo, or whatever. But those fields have shown that good design is good for their clients business. Good design = money. If you can get that across, then people will gladly pay more.
Again, and I hate to keep going back to this, but I think a fundamental problem in architecture is that there is little distinction between 'good' and 'bad'. There's the stararchitects, but beyond that it's a mishmosh (that a word?).
It's hard to convince the public that 'architects' should get paid more, when I even cringe at some of the stuff that is produced, including things with large budgets.
Us architects can't even agree on who is good and who isn't. Meier and Gehry? I think their great arhcitects and savvy businessmen, people that we should be looking to for strategies. They've shown that good design does sell, and it does make money, and their styles couldn't be more different.
I think other professions acknowledge who is good, who to look to for inspiration, etc., more so than architecture. Motion graphis? MK12 will get a nod from most. Web design? Group94 would get that nod. Etc., etc.
In graphics, there are firms that are doing great stuff and they command fees in relation to their skills.
It all comes back to is good design good business? If we can answer that, or if architecture can (as I am more on the graphics side these days), then there will be progress.
trace is right. it's business. you want something? say so. i do that with my contracts. when i worked at an industrial design firm, we occasionally had clients ask that our name not be associated with the work. not ideal for the firm and not something i would do, but you want it that way? fine. it will cost you a lot for that to happen.
i am an intern by the way. i don't write contracts, but good to know that is where the opportunity is at. we have to be the aggressors, but I have never had the opportunity to request recognition myself and didn't know how it happened.
we just hired a marketing person. not sure what she's supposed to do. what is expected of your marketing personnel besides a newsletter? Hardy har har. No, I'm serious.
my father is an accountant, and he often complains about how bad architects, and apparently doctors as well, are at business. most students aren't even interested enough in the subject to take a cognate in business, let alone a dual major. i have taken a few classes in civil engineering, and i'm blown away at how much those students seem to know about business, management, and finance. for many of them, it is a just seen as an essential component to being a successfull engineer...perhaps our profession, especially with regard to academia, could learn something from this.
What also matter in making money is the image you portrait. If you go eat in a poorly maintained, ugly looking restaurant where the food sucks you may feel ripped off when they charge you $100 per plait. The quality of food is equal as important as the whole setting. That is the way most professionals make money. A good balanced combination of image and skills will do it. An occasional bluff will do the trick too. New come lawyers start of by investing a great deal of money in a good looking office, proper furniture and nice suites without even having one client. This portrays an image of professionalism, that eventually will attract clients and client are willing to pay just because of the image.
Now how can someone take a poorly dressed architect serious? If you walk into an architectural firm where they use old doors as tabletops, how can you expect a client to pay what you are worth? Like I said before, you are not going to pay $100 for a plate in a bad looking, untidy looking restaurant, where as in an exclusive restaurant you will. Like anyone you will have the tendency to pay more money for a muffler at Midas than at the local garage in the hood.
Don’t under estimate the packaging. It is equal as important.
‘Don’t under estimate the packaging. It is equal as important.’
What a load of tosh. The packaging is the superficial envelope that carries the goods. It is unfortunate that current philosophy values style over substance. I’d rather pay an architect who I know can do a quality job regardless if he works out of a serviced office or a shed. So long as the service is professional and the end result meets / exceeds with expectations then who gives a f**K.
‘Don’t tried to convince a client the importance of an expensive high tech fully glassed façade that will improve the working condition in an office building if you as an architect work in an old garage with no windows. It doesn’t make you credible.’
It may be b/s but it works and. We (as architects) always want to spend a extra dollar on the cool looking monitor, the pretty car, the stylish couch, the hip pants. So I don't see the problem to buy or use products that attract the eye. Our whole profession is about the envelope, because we all know that people don’t need stylish designed housed to be live a happily. So lets just stop being hypocrites and get with the program.
Just explain the following to me. How credible would the iMac store be is they only use pcs as cash registers? How credible would Pepsi be if they only have Coke machines in the canteen? Would you use a product if no one in the company uses is or uses a different brand? Like the commercials says: …….not only am I the hair club president, I am also a user .....
As for superficial envelopes …......Isn't it a bit odd coming form an architect that you find it unfortunate that the current philosophy values style over substance? That is the reason why we as architects yet exist in the first place. Do we really need a blob-like library or is it only the goods that are important. So the superficial packaging, my friend, is what keeps us moving, is what puts bread on the table. And we are aware that.
It may be b/s but it works and we (as architects) always want to spend an extra dollar on the cool looking monitor, the pretty car, the stylish couch, the hip pants. So I don't see the problem in buying or using products that attracts the eye. Our whole profession is about the envelope, because we all are aware that people don’t need stylish designed houses to be live happily. So lets just stop being hypocrites and get with the program.
Just explain the following to me. How credible would the iMac store be if they only use pcs as cash registers? How credible would Pepsi be if they only have Coke machines in the canteen? Would you use a product if no one in the company uses it or uses a different brand? Like the commercials says: …….not only am I the hair club president, I am also a user .....
As for superficial envelopes …......Isn't it a bit odd coming form an architect that you find it unfortunate that the current philosophy values style over substance? That is the reason why we as architects yet exist in the first place. Do we really need a blob-like library or is it only the goods that are important. So the superficial packaging, my friend, is what keeps us moving, is what puts bread on the table.
Not saying that A is exactly right about the family connection idea - but I do have a funny story to relay in that vain.
Let’s say a southern New England city’s Architect I worked for - Big office building project in for permitting - No MONEY except for some schematic stuff - client says screw-off doesn't pay architects - Said architect makes phone call to concrete supplier "friend" - Concrete truck backs-up to clients office and drops hopper into the lobby - Let's say his name is Joey and he ain't no little fella’ walks into “clients†office - Says without utilizing a complicated sentence structure - Write me a check for $x dollars made out to you know who or I will have an accident with my concrete truck in your lobby – Thanks
We do need to get paid for what we do. There is nothing wrong with that. We may be less able to argue our worth to the average Joe (not Joey) than a doctor or attorney, but most of our clients know what we can do for them.
well, i don't disagree with bots at all; you can't judge a book by its cover. i feel that in the long run, a competant architect with a shitty office will be more successful than an impotent one with a cool office and a nice pair of shoes. however, we are architects, and much of what we deal with revolves around aesthetics. if we don't apply a certain methodology to our own lives, why do we feel that it is important for others to do so as well? what jaja is essentially talking about is good marketing. this is more important in terms of making the initial sale, but in and of itself it won't keep clients coming back. so i think that both bots and jaja are correct in this case...to be successful you need both: good marketing to sell the product, and quality work to keep the reputation up and the customers coming back.
BOTS - You obviously are not the client, and your opinions are in agreement with the relatively few Howard Roarke's of society. I may actually agree with you on a personal level, but
"I’d rather pay an architect who I know can do a quality job regardless if he works out of a serviced office or a shed. So long as the service is professional and the end result meets / exceeds with expectations then who gives a f**K."
Tell me how the client with no design background is able to judge what a "quality job" is, or what criteria he is going to use to judge the competency of the architect. Do you really think the average client is going to be able to recognize a well executed floor plan? Chances are, he's going to be more informed by looking at your shoes. We live in a society built of nothing but superficial exteriors and image. You can still play the game and be a great designer.
It's all about the balance. You don't want to look like you are a wall street broker, but you should look professional. The office I recently was contracted to work at had nice Eames leather chairs (the Exec, I think) and Gray table, just two chairs, a table and fresh exotic flowers every few days. Our chairs were all Aeron's and the computers were all 19" LCDs. Not cheap, but man did it make a nice impression.
I think the same goes for home you look, the business cards, website, etc. You have to look good, but slightly understated. Those two chairs, table, and flowers set the stage when you walk in the front door. I was impressed.
It’s interesting, the subjectivity. Fundamentally, I agree with ‘le bossman’:
“What jaja is essentially talking about is good marketing.â€Â
Certainly we know that balance is worth achieving. But it’s always interesting to look at items within the commentary, exaggerations, perhaps, ‘isolations’ which are already part of the established commentary:
“Clients are willing to pay just because of the imageâ€Â
[Although the pro-aesthetic/ ‘jaja’ argument is generally shaped as a request for balance, comments like this one begin to reveal underlying, exaggerated pro-superficiality propaganda. If we assume this as a truth, is it something architects should promote? Is it not possible to educate the client? In a related move, later, ‘JAG’ implies that clients cannot judge architectural competence outside of superficial aesthetics. But clients are able to judge; for example, they are able to see if the architect is respecting the budget and timeline of a project. And they can be educated regarding ‘form production’, based on structural to its theoretical/philosophical underpinnings. And even superficial aesthetics have a ‘reason’, from the social to the historical. It can be defined and it can be described. And so let us do try to broaden the dialogue.]
“How can someone take a poorly dressed architect [seriously]?â€Â
[Whether concerning an architect’s clothes or workplace, it should be possible to take an architect seriously if the focus is the work, and not the architect. But this is a good question, because it gets down to the LOD (level of detail). It is much easier, and less expensive, to make yourself presentable than to revamp the entire office, especially if that would entail embedding any physical/material possibility you might propose for a client’s project. There is reality as it is, there is utopia, and there certainly are changes that can be made. Good marketing in a visual field certainly entails a good visual presentation, beginning with oneself and moving up a ladder of goals to encompass workplace and lifestyle. Someone earlier mentioned that “we do it because of the groupies, not for the moneyâ€Â. This might make us less financially feasible, stable, but does make us more avant-garde. Consider that physical representations of wealth (gold) have been replaced by placeholders (cash) and now, more and more, bits and bytes (credit/debit transactions). This ‘lightening’ in turn has led to the blurring of distinctions according to wealth (thanks to credit, the mid-wage teenager can drive the BMW). What now highlights people is attention, fame. And in the future, it is popularity that might allow some to leverage resources the way money has been doing (the famous will be the wealthy, by direct relationship; see ‘Attention Economy’. But remember that all this is the marketing, not the architecture. And architecture, alas, is part of a balanced client presentation]
“We (as architects) always want to spend an extra dollar on the cool looking monitor, the pretty car, the stylish couch, the hip pants.â€Â
[And many times functionality is sacrificed. The only reason this does not matter enough to highlight in terms of ‘consumption’ is that, because of competition in the marketplace, a beautiful product tends to be only slightly less functional than the most functional item in that category. However, an underlying problem is also being ignored. We are lucky that shallow judgment allows for the acquisition of ‘deep’ market products, but then, overall, judgment is weakened, contaminated. We end up meandering about life, selecting superficially and realizing, too late, that fundamental truths still apply: “charm is deceitful and beauty is vainâ€Â; especially sad when we come to the ‘structural’, where roofs begin to leak, or elements collapse, for the sake of beauty; or in the ‘social’ realm, where we can’t help certain impoverished human beings, because they are filthy and really stink, and moody; it’s not like on TV.]
“Would you use a product if no one in the company uses it or uses a different brand?â€Â
[This question is utterly misplaced and points to faulty logic in argumentation that is unfortunately all too prevalent in on-line forums. The issue has already been tackled in other threads, so I will not delve too deeply, but… companies integrating their branding shows coherence, organization, good use of branding. Certainly architects should do the same, but the relationship between good (or even simply beautiful) architecture and Macintoshes, black turtlenecks, BMWs, etc. is vague at best, in terms of branding (it’s not branding, it’s ‘pretty’). Hopefully, any one architect’s architecture has characteristics that identify it: production methods, material choices, refined theories, … Hopefully these are elements that will keep the architect busy in an evolution, in a process. And it is out of this that a branding for the particular architecture should emerge.]
“Do we really need a blob-like library or is it only the goods that are important?â€Â
[More faulty logic, and important to note. To relegate ‘blob architecture’ to the merely aesthetic is symptomatic of the lack of interest in fundamental reasoning. ‘Blob architecture’ is not just ‘beautiful’. It is more because it emerges from a logic of production-industrialization, theory-philosophy (representation of diagrams,…), numerical-formal context relationships. One can tell, if one has read, and/or learned in the classroom. And its appreciation as ‘beautiful’ emerged from all this in the first place (‘blobs’ weren’t always beautiful; they were made beautiful).
"I’d rather pay an architect who I know can do a quality job regardless if he works out of a serviced office or a shed. So long as the service is professional and the end result meets / exceeds with expectations then who gives a f**K." I think every one including myself agrees on this. But why would you, as an architect, want a shitty office in the first place. Is it a statement, does it epitomize your firm’s philosophy? It cannot be due to lack of money. A can of paint does wonders.
“I feel that in the long run, a competent architect with a shitty office will be more successful than an impotent one with a cool office and a nice pair of shoes.†I’m not sure if there is a link between having a shitty office and being more successful than the impotent one that has a nice office or shoes. If he’s untalented, it wouldn't matter If he has a nice office or not. But that applies also for the talented one. Many architects prefer to work in a shitty office and being successful. Is a shitty office a guarantee for success and a nice office a camouflage for your inability? Why should there be a choice between both? Why is combining both unthinkable, unheard of and in some arch-scenes absolutely not done? If this is not the case, what drives architects to want to have a shitty office, not wanting to wear a business suit, not wanting to live in a nice house, nice apartment or studio, not wanting to have anything to do with aesthetics in their personal life….?????
I think that you just gave yourself a literary wedgie. Fallacious logic or not, you really should consider editing your posts before you submit. Dont mistake verbosity for depth.
And you forgot to add leather elbowed tweed jackets and pipes to your list of design affectations.
i drive a BMW, wear black turle necks with leather elbowed tweed jackets, listen to my i-pod, have an i-book, 40" flatscreen monitor on my corbu desk, smoke a pipe, have a $600 messy-looking haircut, use 3 hairproducts, carry a prada bowler, paint watercolors, wear deiter tight black pants, use a fat yellow fountain pen, though i have 30/20 vision i don clear acrylic lensed titanium rimmed Leibeskind-style eyeglasses, slip a flower in my lapel, wear a fedora and cape and make beautiful blob architecture. I have a line of clients out through the door and around the block.
How to make money in architecture; i've got the answer
First of all, stop using the f....ed up architecture language. Architects love to use difficult words and terms, but it doesn't mean shit and doesn't contribute a damn thing to the profession. Just read the following quote: “”¦..This is the essential topology that structures the rhetoric of the symbols-allegory opposition as well as that of bourgeois subjectivity and its interiority pathos of exteriority. Against it, a pathos or of surface emerges in Modernism: it revalorizes allegory in all its theatricality”¦.”. Now you tell me, is this sentence trying to say something or trying to make architecture look more sophisticated? I guess people just want to hear, “miss, you have cancer and I'm going to make you better”. That simple.
Practice what you preach. If you don't like McMansions and don't want to design them, don't life in them. Don't tried to convince a client the importance of an expensive high tech fully glassed façade that will improve the working condition in an office building if you as an architect work in an old garage with no windows. It doesn'r make you credible.
Last but not least. It is easy to make money in architecture. If clients don't agree with your fee, just ask them politely how much they pay their lawyer, accountant or broker. My cousins who works for a crappy law firm, sees architecture as a goldmine. As a lawyer, it is even more difficult to justify the fee. Lawyers don't have the amount of education and training required, they don't have to invest an enormous amount of money in hard/software, they don't have a highly trained and educated staff like in an architectural firm and they sure as hell don't work the amount of hours architects do. Showing the client what your overhead costs are, your educational and training background, the service he gets and what he normally pays for other services (law and finance) is enough to put him over the edge.
The "essential topolgy" guy is hiding something and we all know what it is.
I saw the "essential topolgy" guy the other day. his hands were in his pockets. i could not tell what he was hiding.
I would also add market yourself to that list. I would not mind seeing billboards for ordinary architectural services or glossy ad's in the pages of "Town and Country" or "Forbes". Let's be honest, that's what our clients read, why not try to get them through advertising like Ralph Lauren or Kate Spade do?
ah ha ha i'm with this guy....
....there's something to be said of our general inability to relate to the general public
abra:
You don't need to tell us.
the problem is that it is easy to see a lawyers worth, if you have a 20 million dollar lawsuit against you and you pay your lawyer 1 million and he gets you to win, he saved you 19 million. Architecture is harder to show, I think the most important thing is to show the economic benifits of good design, I think there are some business week/some arch magazine award that might be good to show clients the direct correlation between good design and profits.
Hello Peter,
With the holiday weekend coming up many stores will be closed- you should make sure to stock up on your "happy" pill medicine. You dont want to run out of your medicine like you did today. Please, for everyones good, including your own, make that trip to the pharmacy and get your pills stocked.
I shall prevaricate architecturaly obfuscatory erudition and prevail upon you to:
SIMMAHDAHNNAH!!!!!
(irony;)
you mean my mechanic (also my client) should read Forbes and i should loose him to one of those shiny-shiny guys? over my dead relay switch..
I've seen some ad's in the subway of law firms. That just goes to show that not al law firms are the Cochrane's.
I think you need to moderate your langauge usage, but I don't think you should talk like a carpenter. Sometimes it takes a well thought out explanation to get someone to understand the archticture. That may mean that they'll have to read it a few times, but if it's a good explanation and the work good, then it'll be time well spent.
You could look at literature, where, many times, you'll have to read things several times to fully appreciate it. Same goes for art, and even music (and lyrics).
I don't think you should sell your architecture as a one liner....unless it is a one liner.
That said, the goal is still business and good salesmanship. This means giving your clients an intellectual explanation that can be understood.
I just hate to see architecture as a generalized business. It's not. It's diverse and there are good architects and far more bad ones.
I wish the solution to the money woes would be as simple as a bill board, but it's not. The public needs to know the difference between good design and bad design, between a good architect and a bad architect.
HEY PISTOL PETE
FIRST OF ALL I AM THE ONLY ONE ALLOWED TO COME UP WITH ALL THE CRAZY FUCKED UP POSTS AROUND HERE.
SECOND OF ALL DON'T YOU TAKE THAT ANGER MANAGEMENT CLASS WITH RON ARTEST.
THIRD WE ARE NOT HERE FOR THE MONEY. WE ARE HERE FOR THE GROUPIES.
SO UP YOUR DOSE BUDDY AND CHILL OUT DUDE.
BEFORE YOU STROKE OUT ON US.
I think a better answer would be teaming architecture with the mafia. If the clients don't want to pay my fee I've got a huge guy named Tony that would like to meet them.
If your goal is to make money then perhaps a more aggressive marketing campaign would be in order. It's true for nearly any business. A guy like James Sokolove advertises his legal services on billboards and late night TV commercials. However the superstars of law like Gerhragoes or Cochranan market themselves by taking on high profile cases (Jackson, Simpson, Peterson) which land them spots on the evening news. Why can't the same be true for design? If you simply need a new apartment makeover then perhaps you can market yourselves in the Village Voice or Craigslist but if your designing museums then the marketing comes for free by being published. If you want to do high end residental then maybe you should drop 15,000 for a full page spread in the Bergdoff catalog.
Furthermore I don't think we need to teach the public about good and bad design. These kind of things sort themselves out over time and clearly we are swimming upstream. The "public" has chosen the designs it likes through the purchasing decisions they make. And as Deleuze once said (paraphrasing) you can either fight the force of the wave or ride it your own way.
As a service industry, architecture is not that different as accounting, law or even the medical field.
In terms of design, architects are almost the same as industrial designers, graphic designer, even fashion designers.
As artist, architects may have the love for architecture, as painters and sculptors do for art or musicians do for music.
Why does a painter ask $4500 for his painting? Because he thinks that the painting is worth is and not because of its market value.
My point is that most people (especially those in the creative fields) in general, don’t do it for the money. But they are aware of the fact that they need to put bread on the table. Nobody, how artistically ones profession is, works for free. It is known that architects are extremely allergic to money, which explains the hostility towards money talk in the industry. So for the few architects that are the breadwinners of the family, just do what you got to do to the make the paper, think like a lawyer or any other profession for that matter, and forget all the ethics of architecture.
I once read in the back of one of those arts weekly papers an advertisemnt that read, "I may be a whore but im also a classy escort. I'll take you to the top of the world."
...Sorry, i think i may have read that in one of the design trade rags.
look, it really just comes down to the client
you have to know your audience
some people need to be spoken to like that, others just feel humiliated by it. if you can read people quickly, learn to speak their language and LISTEN you'll be okay.
JG, ole johnny cochrane HAS telvision commercials...played on DC tv stations.
JG - I don't mean, necessarily, that we should educate the public about good or bad design, because you are correct, the market will sort itself. But what I don't like is simply the idea to 'market all architects', because it will not help good design, or more talented architects, receive more attention, and, in turn, more money.
I do think that there should be a difference in fees based on the particular architect. It is so generalized now that most ask the same amount, regardless of talent or skill.
I hope this is changing, and I am personally seeing some nice opportunities for marketing talent and skill, versus plain experience or simply providing the basic services. It does, as le bossman points out, come down to the client. If the client can be convinced good design is better for their business, then mission accomplished.
The market(s) will decide if good design is worth more money, and so far, it is proving that (finally).
Who is that "essential topolgy" 'funny' guy?
having worked in a number of design professions, my experience has been that most architects under value their services. granted, the money involved in created a piece of architecture costs a lot more than a product, piece of software, website, or printed brochure and thus many may feel the need to low ball the price just to get the job, but in the long run this is unhealthy for the individual, the firm, and the profession.
some designers/architects i've worked with would only log 8 hours on their timesheet daily even if they worked 12. this is bad because when your bosses go back to look at the number of hours it took to complete a job in order to bid on the next similar job, they are faced, maybe unknowingly, with false information thus the designers are only screwing themselves in the future. the excuse for doing this was that they would look good to their boss by, on paper only, getting the job done within the alotted hours. another i heard was that my boss just doesn't tolerate overtime. all around bad excuses.
it just amazes me that most graphic designers get paid more and are more profitable than most architects. creating a bad piece of print design won't kill anyone and will be thrown away within 6 months. create a bad piece of architecture and you are stuck with it and people can possibly die. architects need to work to fix this wrong.
it is not only the graphic designers, but all designers, business people, medical professionals, bootleg dvd salesman ect. value correct or even overvalue their services. I believe that is not the general publics vault for the bad pay. Architects are their own enemy. So it doesn't amaze me at all when the regional manager of McDonalds who started of flipping burgers end up with a 6 figure salary. It is human nature to want to be financial independen.
But who are we kidding. Maybe we are the drugaddicts of the whole design/service community.
How can architects get free press? When we have projects published in the paper for instance, the article goes on and on and never mentions the architect and if it says anything about the design it is so childish and not interesting. The articles are always about the client and the need for the space, where the money comes from etc. Shoudn't the architect get mentioned at least? ...building designed by ABC Architects... would go great in the first sentence or two and that's all I'm asking for. The client takes credit for the project (rightfully) and in doing so, fails to give credit for the design. Or maybe the client senses that since they paid for the design, there is no need to mention the architect.
Does your firm get free press? I have rarely seen it that the architect gets mention in such publications such as the newspaper.
How does an architecture firm seek free press?
On a simlar note, yet off on a tangent... I did several renderings (thru my firm) for a video promoting some college campus improvements to get dollars from alumni. The film was put together by a film maker (who did Disney's Treasure Island) and I recently heard that the film won a competition. Us, the architects, did not recieve credit for our renderings in any way shape or form in the video. The credits only include the film maker. The renderings made up a sizeable contribution to the film. What is up with that?
Strawberry - you need to request that in your contract. I've received a bunch of free press by simply requesting that they give me credit. I've yet to have anyone even think twice. It's business, people are paying for my services, and if they like them, they should be happy to help me out.
Architects rarely get credit, but design firms don't have their name after the MTV promo, or whatever. But those fields have shown that good design is good for their clients business. Good design = money. If you can get that across, then people will gladly pay more.
Again, and I hate to keep going back to this, but I think a fundamental problem in architecture is that there is little distinction between 'good' and 'bad'. There's the stararchitects, but beyond that it's a mishmosh (that a word?).
It's hard to convince the public that 'architects' should get paid more, when I even cringe at some of the stuff that is produced, including things with large budgets.
Us architects can't even agree on who is good and who isn't. Meier and Gehry? I think their great arhcitects and savvy businessmen, people that we should be looking to for strategies. They've shown that good design does sell, and it does make money, and their styles couldn't be more different.
I think other professions acknowledge who is good, who to look to for inspiration, etc., more so than architecture. Motion graphis? MK12 will get a nod from most. Web design? Group94 would get that nod. Etc., etc.
In graphics, there are firms that are doing great stuff and they command fees in relation to their skills.
It all comes back to is good design good business? If we can answer that, or if architecture can (as I am more on the graphics side these days), then there will be progress.
Strawberry - you need to request that in your contract. I've received a bunch of free press by simply requesting that they give me credit. I've yet to have anyone even think twice. It's business, people are paying for my services, and if they like them, they should be happy to help me out.
Architects rarely get credit, but design firms don't have their name after the MTV promo, or whatever. But those fields have shown that good design is good for their clients business. Good design = money. If you can get that across, then people will gladly pay more.
Again, and I hate to keep going back to this, but I think a fundamental problem in architecture is that there is little distinction between 'good' and 'bad'. There's the stararchitects, but beyond that it's a mishmosh (that a word?).
It's hard to convince the public that 'architects' should get paid more, when I even cringe at some of the stuff that is produced, including things with large budgets.
Us architects can't even agree on who is good and who isn't. Meier and Gehry? I think their great arhcitects and savvy businessmen, people that we should be looking to for strategies. They've shown that good design does sell, and it does make money, and their styles couldn't be more different.
I think other professions acknowledge who is good, who to look to for inspiration, etc., more so than architecture. Motion graphis? MK12 will get a nod from most. Web design? Group94 would get that nod. Etc., etc.
In graphics, there are firms that are doing great stuff and they command fees in relation to their skills.
It all comes back to is good design good business? If we can answer that, or if architecture can (as I am more on the graphics side these days), then there will be progress.
trace is right. it's business. you want something? say so. i do that with my contracts. when i worked at an industrial design firm, we occasionally had clients ask that our name not be associated with the work. not ideal for the firm and not something i would do, but you want it that way? fine. it will cost you a lot for that to happen.
I'm too busy making money to post any more than this.
cha ching cha ching cha ching
i am an intern by the way. i don't write contracts, but good to know that is where the opportunity is at. we have to be the aggressors, but I have never had the opportunity to request recognition myself and didn't know how it happened.
we just hired a marketing person. not sure what she's supposed to do. what is expected of your marketing personnel besides a newsletter? Hardy har har. No, I'm serious.
my father is an accountant, and he often complains about how bad architects, and apparently doctors as well, are at business. most students aren't even interested enough in the subject to take a cognate in business, let alone a dual major. i have taken a few classes in civil engineering, and i'm blown away at how much those students seem to know about business, management, and finance. for many of them, it is a just seen as an essential component to being a successfull engineer...perhaps our profession, especially with regard to academia, could learn something from this.
What also matter in making money is the image you portrait. If you go eat in a poorly maintained, ugly looking restaurant where the food sucks you may feel ripped off when they charge you $100 per plait. The quality of food is equal as important as the whole setting. That is the way most professionals make money. A good balanced combination of image and skills will do it. An occasional bluff will do the trick too. New come lawyers start of by investing a great deal of money in a good looking office, proper furniture and nice suites without even having one client. This portrays an image of professionalism, that eventually will attract clients and client are willing to pay just because of the image.
Now how can someone take a poorly dressed architect serious? If you walk into an architectural firm where they use old doors as tabletops, how can you expect a client to pay what you are worth? Like I said before, you are not going to pay $100 for a plate in a bad looking, untidy looking restaurant, where as in an exclusive restaurant you will. Like anyone you will have the tendency to pay more money for a muffler at Midas than at the local garage in the hood.
Don’t under estimate the packaging. It is equal as important.
‘Don’t under estimate the packaging. It is equal as important.’
What a load of tosh. The packaging is the superficial envelope that carries the goods. It is unfortunate that current philosophy values style over substance. I’d rather pay an architect who I know can do a quality job regardless if he works out of a serviced office or a shed. So long as the service is professional and the end result meets / exceeds with expectations then who gives a f**K.
‘Don’t tried to convince a client the importance of an expensive high tech fully glassed façade that will improve the working condition in an office building if you as an architect work in an old garage with no windows. It doesn’t make you credible.’
Same b/s…
It may be b/s but it works and. We (as architects) always want to spend a extra dollar on the cool looking monitor, the pretty car, the stylish couch, the hip pants. So I don't see the problem to buy or use products that attract the eye. Our whole profession is about the envelope, because we all know that people don’t need stylish designed housed to be live a happily. So lets just stop being hypocrites and get with the program.
Just explain the following to me. How credible would the iMac store be is they only use pcs as cash registers? How credible would Pepsi be if they only have Coke machines in the canteen? Would you use a product if no one in the company uses is or uses a different brand? Like the commercials says: …….not only am I the hair club president, I am also a user .....
As for superficial envelopes …......Isn't it a bit odd coming form an architect that you find it unfortunate that the current philosophy values style over substance? That is the reason why we as architects yet exist in the first place. Do we really need a blob-like library or is it only the goods that are important. So the superficial packaging, my friend, is what keeps us moving, is what puts bread on the table. And we are aware that.
It may be b/s but it works and we (as architects) always want to spend an extra dollar on the cool looking monitor, the pretty car, the stylish couch, the hip pants. So I don't see the problem in buying or using products that attracts the eye. Our whole profession is about the envelope, because we all are aware that people don’t need stylish designed houses to be live happily. So lets just stop being hypocrites and get with the program.
Just explain the following to me. How credible would the iMac store be if they only use pcs as cash registers? How credible would Pepsi be if they only have Coke machines in the canteen? Would you use a product if no one in the company uses it or uses a different brand? Like the commercials says: …….not only am I the hair club president, I am also a user .....
As for superficial envelopes …......Isn't it a bit odd coming form an architect that you find it unfortunate that the current philosophy values style over substance? That is the reason why we as architects yet exist in the first place. Do we really need a blob-like library or is it only the goods that are important. So the superficial packaging, my friend, is what keeps us moving, is what puts bread on the table.
no I disagree - I'll respond when I'm not so busy.... deadlines etc
Not saying that A is exactly right about the family connection idea - but I do have a funny story to relay in that vain.
Let’s say a southern New England city’s Architect I worked for - Big office building project in for permitting - No MONEY except for some schematic stuff - client says screw-off doesn't pay architects - Said architect makes phone call to concrete supplier "friend" - Concrete truck backs-up to clients office and drops hopper into the lobby - Let's say his name is Joey and he ain't no little fella’ walks into “clients†office - Says without utilizing a complicated sentence structure - Write me a check for $x dollars made out to you know who or I will have an accident with my concrete truck in your lobby – Thanks
We do need to get paid for what we do. There is nothing wrong with that. We may be less able to argue our worth to the average Joe (not Joey) than a doctor or attorney, but most of our clients know what we can do for them.
Show me the money.
well, i don't disagree with bots at all; you can't judge a book by its cover. i feel that in the long run, a competant architect with a shitty office will be more successful than an impotent one with a cool office and a nice pair of shoes. however, we are architects, and much of what we deal with revolves around aesthetics. if we don't apply a certain methodology to our own lives, why do we feel that it is important for others to do so as well? what jaja is essentially talking about is good marketing. this is more important in terms of making the initial sale, but in and of itself it won't keep clients coming back. so i think that both bots and jaja are correct in this case...to be successful you need both: good marketing to sell the product, and quality work to keep the reputation up and the customers coming back.
BOTS - You obviously are not the client, and your opinions are in agreement with the relatively few Howard Roarke's of society. I may actually agree with you on a personal level, but
"I’d rather pay an architect who I know can do a quality job regardless if he works out of a serviced office or a shed. So long as the service is professional and the end result meets / exceeds with expectations then who gives a f**K."
Tell me how the client with no design background is able to judge what a "quality job" is, or what criteria he is going to use to judge the competency of the architect. Do you really think the average client is going to be able to recognize a well executed floor plan? Chances are, he's going to be more informed by looking at your shoes. We live in a society built of nothing but superficial exteriors and image. You can still play the game and be a great designer.
It's all about the balance. You don't want to look like you are a wall street broker, but you should look professional. The office I recently was contracted to work at had nice Eames leather chairs (the Exec, I think) and Gray table, just two chairs, a table and fresh exotic flowers every few days. Our chairs were all Aeron's and the computers were all 19" LCDs. Not cheap, but man did it make a nice impression.
I think the same goes for home you look, the business cards, website, etc. You have to look good, but slightly understated. Those two chairs, table, and flowers set the stage when you walk in the front door. I was impressed.
It’s interesting, the subjectivity. Fundamentally, I agree with ‘le bossman’:
“What jaja is essentially talking about is good marketing.â€Â
Certainly we know that balance is worth achieving. But it’s always interesting to look at items within the commentary, exaggerations, perhaps, ‘isolations’ which are already part of the established commentary:
“Clients are willing to pay just because of the imageâ€Â
[Although the pro-aesthetic/ ‘jaja’ argument is generally shaped as a request for balance, comments like this one begin to reveal underlying, exaggerated pro-superficiality propaganda. If we assume this as a truth, is it something architects should promote? Is it not possible to educate the client? In a related move, later, ‘JAG’ implies that clients cannot judge architectural competence outside of superficial aesthetics. But clients are able to judge; for example, they are able to see if the architect is respecting the budget and timeline of a project. And they can be educated regarding ‘form production’, based on structural to its theoretical/philosophical underpinnings. And even superficial aesthetics have a ‘reason’, from the social to the historical. It can be defined and it can be described. And so let us do try to broaden the dialogue.]
“How can someone take a poorly dressed architect [seriously]?â€Â
[Whether concerning an architect’s clothes or workplace, it should be possible to take an architect seriously if the focus is the work, and not the architect. But this is a good question, because it gets down to the LOD (level of detail). It is much easier, and less expensive, to make yourself presentable than to revamp the entire office, especially if that would entail embedding any physical/material possibility you might propose for a client’s project. There is reality as it is, there is utopia, and there certainly are changes that can be made. Good marketing in a visual field certainly entails a good visual presentation, beginning with oneself and moving up a ladder of goals to encompass workplace and lifestyle. Someone earlier mentioned that “we do it because of the groupies, not for the moneyâ€Â. This might make us less financially feasible, stable, but does make us more avant-garde. Consider that physical representations of wealth (gold) have been replaced by placeholders (cash) and now, more and more, bits and bytes (credit/debit transactions). This ‘lightening’ in turn has led to the blurring of distinctions according to wealth (thanks to credit, the mid-wage teenager can drive the BMW). What now highlights people is attention, fame. And in the future, it is popularity that might allow some to leverage resources the way money has been doing (the famous will be the wealthy, by direct relationship; see ‘Attention Economy’. But remember that all this is the marketing, not the architecture. And architecture, alas, is part of a balanced client presentation]
“We (as architects) always want to spend an extra dollar on the cool looking monitor, the pretty car, the stylish couch, the hip pants.â€Â
[And many times functionality is sacrificed. The only reason this does not matter enough to highlight in terms of ‘consumption’ is that, because of competition in the marketplace, a beautiful product tends to be only slightly less functional than the most functional item in that category. However, an underlying problem is also being ignored. We are lucky that shallow judgment allows for the acquisition of ‘deep’ market products, but then, overall, judgment is weakened, contaminated. We end up meandering about life, selecting superficially and realizing, too late, that fundamental truths still apply: “charm is deceitful and beauty is vainâ€Â; especially sad when we come to the ‘structural’, where roofs begin to leak, or elements collapse, for the sake of beauty; or in the ‘social’ realm, where we can’t help certain impoverished human beings, because they are filthy and really stink, and moody; it’s not like on TV.]
“Would you use a product if no one in the company uses it or uses a different brand?â€Â
[This question is utterly misplaced and points to faulty logic in argumentation that is unfortunately all too prevalent in on-line forums. The issue has already been tackled in other threads, so I will not delve too deeply, but… companies integrating their branding shows coherence, organization, good use of branding. Certainly architects should do the same, but the relationship between good (or even simply beautiful) architecture and Macintoshes, black turtlenecks, BMWs, etc. is vague at best, in terms of branding (it’s not branding, it’s ‘pretty’). Hopefully, any one architect’s architecture has characteristics that identify it: production methods, material choices, refined theories, … Hopefully these are elements that will keep the architect busy in an evolution, in a process. And it is out of this that a branding for the particular architecture should emerge.]
“Do we really need a blob-like library or is it only the goods that are important?â€Â
[More faulty logic, and important to note. To relegate ‘blob architecture’ to the merely aesthetic is symptomatic of the lack of interest in fundamental reasoning. ‘Blob architecture’ is not just ‘beautiful’. It is more because it emerges from a logic of production-industrialization, theory-philosophy (representation of diagrams,…), numerical-formal context relationships. One can tell, if one has read, and/or learned in the classroom. And its appreciation as ‘beautiful’ emerged from all this in the first place (‘blobs’ weren’t always beautiful; they were made beautiful).
"Subjectively", fundamental reason will bring us to a true non-aesthetic by means of proper reading and exclusive software and classroom learning.
Um, fen-om, you aren't suggesting blobs are beautiful, are you?
"I’d rather pay an architect who I know can do a quality job regardless if he works out of a serviced office or a shed. So long as the service is professional and the end result meets / exceeds with expectations then who gives a f**K." I think every one including myself agrees on this. But why would you, as an architect, want a shitty office in the first place. Is it a statement, does it epitomize your firm’s philosophy? It cannot be due to lack of money. A can of paint does wonders.
“I feel that in the long run, a competent architect with a shitty office will be more successful than an impotent one with a cool office and a nice pair of shoes.†I’m not sure if there is a link between having a shitty office and being more successful than the impotent one that has a nice office or shoes. If he’s untalented, it wouldn't matter If he has a nice office or not. But that applies also for the talented one. Many architects prefer to work in a shitty office and being successful. Is a shitty office a guarantee for success and a nice office a camouflage for your inability? Why should there be a choice between both? Why is combining both unthinkable, unheard of and in some arch-scenes absolutely not done? If this is not the case, what drives architects to want to have a shitty office, not wanting to wear a business suit, not wanting to live in a nice house, nice apartment or studio, not wanting to have anything to do with aesthetics in their personal life….?????
fen-om,
I think that you just gave yourself a literary wedgie. Fallacious logic or not, you really should consider editing your posts before you submit. Dont mistake verbosity for depth.
And you forgot to add leather elbowed tweed jackets and pipes to your list of design affectations.
i drive a BMW, wear black turle necks with leather elbowed tweed jackets, listen to my i-pod, have an i-book, 40" flatscreen monitor on my corbu desk, smoke a pipe, have a $600 messy-looking haircut, use 3 hairproducts, carry a prada bowler, paint watercolors, wear deiter tight black pants, use a fat yellow fountain pen, though i have 30/20 vision i don clear acrylic lensed titanium rimmed Leibeskind-style eyeglasses, slip a flower in my lapel, wear a fedora and cape and make beautiful blob architecture. I have a line of clients out through the door and around the block.
suture:
"black turle necks with leather elbowed tweed jackets"?
you forgot the aligator Italien loafers with micro-thin soles.
no socks, please
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.