Archinect
anchor

Why do we need architects to make buildings?

design

I feel like the world doesn't need us anymore.

at a recent community hearing for the unveiling of a new starchitect-ish master plan, which included a museum, the people complained about their tax dollars going into these expensive creations. They said, there were many, perfectly fine, empty buildings in their city that could accommodate works of art, public spaces, etc. 

They had a point. But we don.t need Architecture, to makes some cheapo-pre-fab stuff, that stuff sucks.

Our buildings exist as objects in a landscape of greed, they rape the natural world, or are nostalgic regurgitation. Go look at  pictures of Rome if you want lo live in the past. There is no room for Architecture in those dimensions.

The articulation of space thru generic materials like dry-wall, stock windows, EPDM, whats it all for? It stands for nothing, makes little difference to our world, nobody cares.

Maybe architects don't need to just make buildings anymore.

 
Oct 27, 11 9:03 pm
jplourde

The world never needed architects to make buildings.  The world needs architects to make architecture.

Oct 27, 11 10:20 pm  · 
 · 

ar·chi·tec·ture n. The art and science of designing and erecting buildings.

 

Oct 27, 11 10:39 pm  · 
 · 

 The world needs architects to make architecture.

But the world may need architects to stop other people from making buildings.  Nah, I don't want to be an enforcer.

Donatello, everything you say is true.  But I can find, in every project, a moment or two of satisfying architectural experience.  Usually it's a material selection, like a good wood species, or a nice drawer pull, or bringing natural light in at an unexpected place, or a window frame detail, or a color treatment, or a framing of a view.  Just keep on doing the best you can.

Oct 27, 11 10:44 pm  · 
 · 

oh god, a nice drawer pull?  if that's all we have to look forward to, i'm out.  however i do appreciate the optimism.  

"Our buildings exist as objects in a landscape of greed, they rape the natural world, or are nostalgic regurgitation."

well-put op.  i really only have my own perspective of all of this, but i'd think if architectural design as a broad value wants to be relevant in any way, it needs to occupy a grassroots movement.  everyone at the top is gluttonous with personal interests.  starchitecture is poisonous.  it perpetuates the idea that architecture is also gluttonous.  

yes the problem doesn't lie in the interests of the general public, it's those money whores.

Oct 28, 11 2:05 am  · 
 · 

Nope, you're wrong.  The problem lies firmly in the interests of the general public, which is to say the lack of interest they have in anything high quality, inventive, or bold.

Oct 28, 11 8:55 am  · 
 · 

nobody needs architects. there are plenty of folks, ranging from genius to dumb-ass, that can make buildings. and there are plenty of architects who cause the making of bad buildings.

 

if the building is only about the making of money over a short-term, we may or may not be value-added. in that situation, an architect may only be valuable in the agency-required preparation/stamping of plans or - possibly - design in the service of marketing.  

mostly, the involvement of an architect is a choice, hopefully a choice in favor of making a project better than if an architect were not used. it's aspirational: deciding that, if your project is worth building then you want to make it worth keeping. 

if you look around it's apparent that most people who are building are not concerned with what's worth keeping. or what kinds of garbage and scars they inflict on the world. thus the work of architects has a lesser weight among the things they value. 

Oct 28, 11 9:38 am  · 
 · 
toasteroven

at a recent community hearing for the unveiling of a new starchitect-ish master plan, which included a museum, the people complained about their tax dollars going into these expensive creations. They said, there were many, perfectly fine, empty buildings in their city that could accommodate works of art, public spaces, etc. 

 

this has more to do with who is financing the construction of the museum - not anything to do with the architect or the building design.  plus, shouldn't the museum foundation be putting up most of the money for the building part of the project?  seems like there's something else going on.  who's benefiting from all this?

 

architects are, in fact, hired to refurbish existing buildings for new uses and still often do inspiring work.  I'm assuming this is city-owned property and the architect was hired to deal with this particular property.  if there are other city-owned properties with decent building stock in appropriate neighborhoods then maybe they'd try to figure something else out - but, if you've ever been involved in something like this, then you'd know that these projects depend both on funding and organizations who are willing to occupy the space - and both of these could go away if anything sours.

Oct 28, 11 10:26 am  · 
 · 
Token AE

In practice, I would say that the world still very much needs the classically defined architect. Every symphony needs a conductor.

I see two things killing the profession. The first is a growing schism between 'design' architects and 'practice' architects- a rift between theory and practice. Claiming to be an Architect without having both of those two critical pieces makes you a partial professional- a theory that goes back to Vitruvius.

The second problem is a result of the above. This ongoing split is resulting an an ever decreasing amount of legal control over the design/ construction process that an architect can have. The more control that you can maintain over a process, the more fee that you can command, the more expertise you will retain, and the more necessary to the process that you will be viewed.

If you want to be so technical that you are pretty much an engineer, or so design oriented that you are essentially an artist- be prepared for stiff competition on both of those fronts and extreme difficulty commanding a fee and having demand for your services. That is not to say there is anything wrong (or impossible) about either of those approaches- but it is much more difficult.

And while we are on the topics of greedy corporate architects:

I still stand by my opinion that if you are being paid a flat annual salary, you are probably getting screwed or viewed as an overhead production expense by management.

Oct 28, 11 10:27 am  · 
 · 

what if you're a partner making a flat annual salary?

Oct 28, 11 1:20 pm  · 
 · 
miesian

There are many things wrong with your thinking Donatello.

1 - The Architect is given a budget and a project. They don't decide to make the new building, or how much it will cost.

2 - If you believe that money should not be spent on Architecture to build quality buildings, then you should also give up your iphone, mini cooper, nice clothes, and eat shit instead of steaks. This argument is fundamentally flawed and stupid. Re-using buildings and re-purposing buildings is a good thing, but this not always appropriate or necessarily cheaper, and once again not the Architect's call.

3 - Buildings will keep getting built whether there are Architects or not.

4 - The buildings that rape the landscape and all that other stuff you mention, do so most of the time because of the decisions being made by other forces involved such as the client, contractor, city officials, banks, policy makers, etc. Sure, there are shitty Architects out there, but to blame Architects as a group for the raping of landscapes is uniformed at best.

Oct 28, 11 1:59 pm  · 
 · 

Architecture, like everything else in capitalistic society, has been commoditized. It is a collective failure of values, responsibility, education and imagination that permeates society.

Name brands prevail despite their massive failures while the practitioners of meaningful, responsible and sustainable buildings are largely ignored or delegated to the fringe. Lazy, ignorant “consumers” heat and cool entire buildings that they never fully and often hardly ever use. Architects ignore time-tested low-technology energy-efficient building techniques in favor of the latest untested materials and profit-center gadgets and gizmos. Architecture is now fad and fashion, disposable, and great buildings – like those that have lasted hundreds of years or more – are no longer being produced.

The world needs real architects – those now on the fringe – more than ever but does not yet recognize that need. In a new world order adaptive reuse will be the norm. This is otherwise known as making chicken salad out of chicken shit.

I’m visualizing Yuri Zhivago’s Moscow house after the revolution.
 

 

Oct 28, 11 2:21 pm  · 
 · 

 

Oct 28, 11 2:55 pm  · 
 · 
Token AE

What if you're a partner making a flat annual salary?

 

A good point- perhaps I should have given my comment a little more context in that it was directed towards the rank and file in a firm- graduate interns, designers, and the like.

In my experience, the partners with flat salaries are also entitled to a share in the firm's profits- and rightfully so given the liability that they carry. The risk of making less money on a salary is offset by the chance of reaping bigger rewards in the profit share.

The rank and file typically don't get the same bonus that a principal would. I have encountered entry to mid level employees working for an undervalued flat salary and still being billed hourly to the client. That's unethical, plain and simple. How much of the fee made in excess of their flat salary do you think goes back to the person that actually logged those billable hours?

If a partner is taking a flat salary with no profit share to keep the firm afloat- then that person is a saint.

Oct 28, 11 3:24 pm  · 
 · 

"Every symphony needs a conductor" is a great analogy. I like it so much, I'm going to indulge myself and extend music as a metaphor for architecture in the context of our current global economic crisis. Obviously, it's easy to link "classical" music with "classical" or neoclassical architecture: it exists as a remnant, a memory of a time or (in the case of neoclassicism) a perversion of it. You could say the same for modern. What we're dealing with now is an international sea change toward a more democratic global society, the scope of which is unprecedented. What music has been the most successful in bringing our generation together all around the world? Techno and house. I'm not trying to promote either genre of dance music as interesting or even palatable (though I have to say I am inclined); rather, I'd like to point to the place where it happens: abandoned (ware)houses. The inclination for underground dance events to crop up in post-industrial wasteland settings (see Detroit) is symptomatic of our culture. Place has a meaningfulness toward reuse and revaluing, becoming a positive expression that reconciles our needs and wants. We need architects to approach the tangible remnants of neocapitalism with the samefinesse as a DJ.

Oct 28, 11 3:53 pm  · 
 · 
won and done williams

Isn't it "every symphony needs a composer"? I think the job site superintendent would be the conductor. Oh well, carry on...

Oct 28, 11 4:31 pm  · 
 · 
Token AE

Construction administration? Coordination? Owner representation?

Last time I checked, most architects don't just stop when their CDs are out the door.

Oct 28, 11 4:37 pm  · 
 · 
TaliesinAGG

The world needs good clients, paired with great Architects,  and financing.

 

Oct 28, 11 4:58 pm  · 
 · 
warrenbuffet

The world will always need us... and how much will always change

http://ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Induce-Lucid-Dreams&id=6619174

Oct 28, 11 5:25 pm  · 
 · 
snook_dude

THE WORLD NEEDS US MORE THAN EVER....THE WORLD POPULATION HAS DOUBLED SINCE 1962.  THERE IS GREAT ARCHITECTURE BEING REALIZED, TODAY IN THIS CRAZY WORLD OF OURS. OPEN YOUR FRICKING EYES. YOU WANT TO TELL ME IT WAS BETTER IN THE 1800'S OR THE 1700'S OR THE 1600'S.  THINK OF ALL THE  ARCHITECTS OF HISTORY THEN THINK ABOUT THE TIME FRAME INWHICH THEY PRACTICED, AND I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE PRACTICING AT A HIGHER LEVEL OF ARCHITECTURE THAN AT ANY TIME KNOWN TO MANKIND.

Oct 28, 11 6:37 pm  · 
 · 
design

Some great discussion here all, thanks.

I use to think that architecture in this day and age, could stand for something beyond the simplistic notion of the art and science of making buildings.

For the things that change or progress the world, how badly do they need an architect? Could a building be capable of making such sweeping statements, as what's going on in Wall Street, or some other world crisis. I feel like no one needs an architect (in the traditional sense) to fix or debate any of that. Saying "hey it’s the client, the economy, sorry that’s how it is" reduces us all to a commodity, like how PJ said we are a bunch of hoes.Can things be different now? For rebellion is in the air.

The last time architecture had the opportunity to be this powerful was probably during the World War era, as it was tied to newfound social awareness.

 

But what's out there now, could put one to sleep.
 

Oct 28, 11 8:09 pm  · 
 · 
comb

@ Donatello: "But what's out there now, could put one to sleep."

For most of the world's population, buildings are fundamentally about 'shelter' and 'commerce' and 'economy -- i.e. helping people meet the necessities of life. In a world of scarcity, the intangibles we in the profession like to debate ad nauseum are simply irrelevant. Building are not fundamentally about keeping you intellectually stimulated.

In both the academy and the profession, too many look down their collective noses at those practitioners who simply concentrate on erecting 'competent' buildings. If, as a group, we are becoming irrelevant, one need look only at my prior sentence to understand the main reason that irrelevancy is occurring.
 

Oct 29, 11 2:07 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

Too much attention on architecture by and for the 1%, and architecture by and for the empire..., it has always been this way (pyramids, cathedrals, corporate plazas), and the business has evolved to work this way.  People are sometimes the beneficiaries of public works, and more often the victims of development, but the control is always in the hands of the state or the wealthy, and thus the destiny of architecture is always at their will.  We need to liberate the potential of architecture by challenging this relationship in my opinion. “The will of the epoch” is really the will of the wealthy and powerful in that specific epoch, and now, things are out of whack between the will of the powerful and that of the powerless.  The will of the powerless reflects the  direction we should be moving, but  lacks the power to build places in their image, so what I see happening is the inability of architecture to adapt to pressing societal demands, and when something cannot adapt to changes it becomes obsolete.  We need to tap into the real epoch somehow if we are to have an architecture that truly responds to the needs of the times and evolves to the changes, or the value of architecture will never be fully realized.  Frampton is correct by saying "architecture is for the people rather than by the people."  Most of the world is under-served by architecture.  Too become relevant in the world we need to democratize architecture and put control in the hands of the masses.  Not sure how, but it would  require a new business model that relies on collective wealth rather than individual wealth. 

Oct 29, 11 3:56 pm  · 
 · 
snook_dude

my friend can I introduce you to Cameron Sinclair...and his better half. 

This is architecture and livelhood for the masses.

Go Big Guy~

Oct 29, 11 10:39 pm  · 
 · 
design

really admire Cameron, and more so, practice as fiction,

because buildings as of now, are not enough for Architecture

Oct 30, 11 12:05 am  · 
 · 
x-jla

"practice as fiction"  can you explain?

 

 

Oct 30, 11 2:56 am  · 
 · 
jplourde

Miles Jaffe, 

 

That definition is wanting.  I'll propose an alternative:  The self-conscious art and science of designing and erecting buildings.  

Architecture [as practiced by architects] is a self-conscious art that can simultaneously self-reference its future and its past.  

To make it simpler, I'll pose a series of constructs:

A building:  a tilt up big box store on a simple site.  Simply how it stands in terms of structure and how to waterproof.   Case in point a Walmart big box store by a bunch of nameless people.

A design: an object that is designed and purposed for it's time and place, case in point an iPhone by Apple and Steve Jobs.

An architecture: a series of ideas that simultaneously self-purpose, and self-reference whilst intellectually moving 'forward'.  Case in point ''A Machine for Living''  by LeCorbusier

Whoever told you architecture could be found and defined in a dictionary?

 

 

 

Oct 30, 11 9:48 pm  · 
 · 

@jplourde: Every definition is wanting and open to personal interpretation. But I'll take the one I posted over your archibabble, which is a mindset responsible for many of the problems in architecture today. Architecture is not a theoretical exercise in semantics and philosophy, despite what your college professor(s) said.

Corbu is a particularly poor choice of models as his urban fantasies were inhumane and laid the foundation for "because we can" architecture, which fails to address whether that by itself is a good reason for or to do anything.

To unravel your constructs:

A building is not just a big box store but any number of purposeful constructions for with different requirements, uses, restrictions, etc.

A design is not an object, but rather a concept, and can be intangible. All buildings - from shelters constructed of found materials to the most technologically complex industrial facilities - are designed. Any conscious act of creation, whether executed or not, is a design. Your “big box store” was designed for and purposed for its time and place.

"Self-purposing, self-referencing, and intellectually forward moving" is an empty semantic game posing as sophisticated philosophical discourse that ignores reality as well as the purposes and functions of architecture.
 

 

Oct 31, 11 1:21 pm  · 
 · 
snook_dude

give me shelter....

"give me shelter from the storm"

That is what architecture is, we just all get there a different way.

Oct 31, 11 5:00 pm  · 
 · 
design

guess what I was trying to say was that "architects" need to take "architecture" as something beyond just making buildings.

making buildings is not enough, that ship has sailed for the most part.

 

@j.arelo
i think that's a great idea, democratizing architecture, but it will never happen...

Oct 31, 11 10:13 pm  · 
 · 

donatello - have you ever read leon krier's early writings? really curious because (i think) you'd agree with his stance then:

 

Some twenty years ago, Mr. Krier famously summed up this ethic of rejection when he declared: “A responsible architect cannot possibly build today… . Building can only mean a greater or smaller degree of collaboration in a civilized society’s process of self-destruction.” Mr. Krier has apparently repudiated that statement. Nevertheless, it underscores a permanent temptation to which his approach to architecture is susceptible. Nor was that statement a solitary aberration. “I can only make Architecture,” he said in another manifesto-like statement from the 1970s, “because I do not build. I do not build because I am an Architect.”

Oct 31, 11 10:25 pm  · 
 · 
design

@gregory

yeah, read a lot of Krier, and how he thinks that humanity has already reached its peak, hence why he designs the way he does, he's really a fascinating guy. 

but im kind of tempted to go in the opposite direction of where he goes, not sure where that is though..

Oct 31, 11 10:31 pm  · 
 · 
x-jla

I can only make Architecture,” he said in another manifesto-like statement from the 1970s, “because I do not build. I do not build because I am an Architect.”

Wow such a good quote!  Its so true.  

Nov 1, 11 12:30 pm  · 
 · 

But we don.t need Architecture, to makes some cheapo-pre-fab stuff, that stuff sucks.

That's funny because most of the non-residential architect-designed buildings I see around here all use expensive "cheapo-pre-fab" type stuff from aluminum-paneling enveloping car dealerships to tilt-up concrete McDonald's.

Even though this is residential architecture... how much more phony architecture bullshit barrel roofs, black mullions and useless brise soliels do we need? Cover me in brushed metal and cherry-colored wood veneer and call me a heathen!

Nov 2, 11 12:46 pm  · 
 · 

"I can only make Architecture,” he said in another manifesto-like statement from the 1970s, “because I do not build. I do not build because I am an Architect.”

Mental masturbation.

 

Nov 2, 11 3:04 pm  · 
 · 

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.

  • ×Search in: