A huge segment of the population is underserved by architecture. I don't know anyone who EVER used an architect. I know many people who have used lawyers, doctors, but no architects. Anyone know of any firms that focus on architecture for everyday folks. I am not talkling about third world countries and poverty stricken areas, but middle class/working class demographics. Is there a market for this assuming a better economy in the future?
So this guy thinks we can design a bathroom in 4 hours and our time is worth about $50/hr. There are perhaps some assumptions to be made based on our real life experiences, such as the probability that they won't like your first or sixth design, so you would you have to work through a few iterations, probably help with finish selection and the sorts of things that are common on most projects similar to this. For $200. That's probably a fair guess of what the middle class has to spend.
I would love to see a business plan of sorts relative to what you might be thinking here. What sort of project scope are you thinking, and what sort of fees would you charge? What are your related expenses (such as travel, health insurance, EandO, etc.)? Can you make enough to eat, even if it's only peanut butter and jelly sandwiches? What sort of income would your potential client have to work with? Can they afford to pay you?
I'll will start by making up some numbers real quick: Let's try a house. I'm thinking middle class somewhere around $50,000/year income or $4,000/month. I bet you could get a fair $1,500/mo mortgage somewhere in that area, maybe a $150,000 house. That should be about $100/sf for a 1,500sf house. This is assuming a pretty smart client that hasn't racked up student loan and credit card debts (also no taxes figured in).
Can anyone with more experience than me extrapolate on this? Can we build a residential house for a middle income client and still get high enough design fees that we can maintain our own middle class lifestyle? Or do we think a 300sf house is all middle income people should be able to afford, and they should still hire an architect for that? Or can we create a plan more tailored to either whole-house renovations, or specific room renovations?
Yeah but the cost of the land will shoot that price up to like 250k most likely, so what I was wondering is if there are any "good architecture" subdivisions or townhousing communities that can compete in price with the KB home type crap. Don't have to be fancy, but just good basic design and urban plan. Any firms that specialise in this type of work, if so, how do they make a buck? Possibly design build firms? It is probably not going to work from a business perspective if the client pays you directly if that makes any sense, but rather a developer that will build affordable middle/working class housing that is architecture rather than mcmansion crap. With that, there may be some room for customization within a reasonable range and some client-architect collaboration, as there is some room for customization (colors etc.) when a model home is sold in a new crappy subdivision. The best example I can think of right now is the stuff that Brad Pitts organization is building in New Orleans, but these homes are not really affordable the cost is subsidised by the NPO ect... Seems like a huge market that we totally gave away to developers, even in this economy there is still housing being built due to the fact that there are no homes on the market except cash only forclosures and shortsales that are very hard to get with a conventional loan and impossible with an FHA.
Housing is a need not a luxury, and architects need to corner the market on more needs rather than wants in my opinion. It's why doctors and lawyers are still doing well after all.
Also, the rental market is very strong. These homes if built cheap enough could be rented for the time being until the buyer market picks up.
Also curtram, you bring up a good point about billing. No One other than rich people are going to pay hourly fees to an architect. This is scary to most people. I really think that this is a huge problem in the profession and shows a great lack of business creativity. I was talking to an economics friend of mine and he was laughing at how stupid we are. this business model is so outdated and out of touch with our society. People want to know how much something will cost. They are used to products that they can see and a set price not a service that takes time and has uncertain outcomes. I think if we want to tap into the middle class market we need a totally new business model that will allow for the building of a product to be sold to a client with some room for customization. Does this make sense?
Isnt that what the who Pre-Fab thing was supposed to address? It will have to also come down to simpler less expensive materials, less square footage, etc..The middle class doesnt want to look like they live middle class, they want the huge valted foyers, granite countertops, huge luxurious bathrooms, and bedrooms larger than most apartments I lived in when in college...People say the love the simplicity of an Eichler, buy one, then strip it of all its simplicity, then add on to it.. Realtors, builders, developers have dictated how middle class should live..but if an Architect tries to do that, they are labled arrogant...by other Architects..I really believe a certain segment of the middle class will soon be a huge opportunity for good Architecture.
I would like to chime in here although I'm not an architect. Please don't attack me! I wound up here because I am the 99% and I am in need of architectural services that won't cost an arm and a leg. We live in a small rural community about an hour outside of Chicago. No, not a suburb, but an actual tiny little town surrounded by corn fields. Our house is a lovely little bungalow with a walk up but unfinished attic. We are in the planning stages of finishing the attic. I'm trying to design the space myself. Tthe norm out here is to hire a contractor, tell him you want two beds and a bath and hope for the best. So I think your idea of architecture for the people is a great idea. I mean the guy we're going to hire knows how to build, but I've seen houses he's built and he's no designer. Our mortgage is only 450 a month and we have a tiny budget for the work we need to have done. My husband and I will do all the finish work such as tiling, woodwork, and flooring. So what someone in our situation needs is NOT detailed drawings, but a general layout. (unlike the guy who wants the $200 bathroom) So I'm interested in what an architect's view on that is.
kevin, pre-fab is a problem because one needs a site, so they are typically rural or mobile home parks. Most middle class people want to live in specific suburban or urban areas where small lots are scarce and usually in this market as expensive as a lot with a home on it. They are also much tougher to get loans for, most banks won't touch them. As for dictating how people live, providing choice alternatives to mcmansions frees people from being told how to live. I would have bought architecture if I could, but instead I live in a crappy subdivision because it was all I could afford. I agree with you that it will appeal to a certain segment of the middle class only, but I would bet that there is a huge un-tapped market out there (once the economy picks up anyway). Also the urban plan is as important or more than the house itself. Why can't we design walkable affordable communities, it just dosent make sense why walkable areas are always for the wealthy. communal parking areas, and streets for pedestrians and emegency vehicles only should be cheaper to build than garages and driveways for every house. I think many people would want this.
Part of an Architect's job is to help the owner realize if their project is feasible or not. So we ask questions.
Do you know what you want?
What is it?
What colors do you like?
Who's going to use the space?
Are you living in the house for twenty years or are you moving in the next 5 years?
How will your needs change over that time frame?
What is your budget? Is it realistic?
Are you paying cash or financing the project?
How much of this are you doing yourself?
Are you legally allowed to do all the work you are considering to do your self?
How old is your house?
How well has it been maintained?
How do you know you don't need detailed drawings? (May be required for the permit process even though the contractor is very capable)
Some of these questions we resolve by doing a thorough review of the home.
Some of them are resolved through our conversations and others through research. All of this before we even start "drawing"
Hopefully you can begin to see how this can take time and we have to make the choice, am I going to spend my time doing work that is going to put food on my table, build my business and allow me to be productive? Sometimes we can choose to do work pro bono, but one of my biggest pet peeves is when someone is looking for something for free but acting as if they are going to pay you for the work. I'm sure there are many on this page that would be willing to discuss these issues with you.
I'm assuming that by finishing your attic it will be improving you quality of life. So you have to ask yourself, it I won't pay an arm and a leg for this, how much will I pay for an improvement in the quality of my life. Only you can answer that question. If you are going to ask an Architect to help you do that then there needs to be a benefit to them for providing those services for you. The benefits that I contemplate when considering a new client are the commission, the client and the project. Sometimes I will choose a project because I need the money. Sometimes I choose a project because I want to work with a specific client. Sometimes I choose a project because the project itself is something I want to be a part of.
Our society is need of major change, re organization, and a new way of thinking. When the current way's finish collapsing architects will be in great demand. However it will be a much diferent scene. maybe you can help design and build a sustainable small town that is not dependant on the world government. Maybe have the oppurtunity to design and build a fully sustainanble environment with much less options and using only what is around or can be created on site. More like a third world country. Designers and engineers will have the oppurtunity to create a new world. Hopefully one that is not designed for collapse and destruction like the curent system. We will be faced with major challenges, and great rewards. I dont see any future in modern architecture or the modern monetary system. Lets build a better world from the ground up~
Where I live in Calgary, Canada, there is one company I know of. Housebrand is their name they also run the slowhome studio. My old prof (current U of Calgary Prof) started it to bring to fruition his idea that the average homebuyer could buy a home designed for them by an architect. Check them out, they do good work.
Nam, thats what I'm saying, so why is the market not being filled if there is some demand? The demand is probably much greater than we think. I know alot of non-architects who live in suburbia and hate it, but since urban living has become increasingly expensive, it is really the only option especially when you have a family and require larger living space then you can get in a city on a middle-working class wage. Is it a matter of cost? Also, as I said I think the real opportunity is not in the style of the house or the individual unit but in the design of community so developers need to get on board. People really hate the anti-social suburban environment. Think BedZed in England, why is this such an anomally, and so absent in the US? Seems like the demand is much greater than the supply. Is it a lack of vision by developers, or is the typical business model of arch firms obstructing these kind of projects from being more common? Free-market or consumer driven market seems not so free without real choice available. Blockbuster video was the "top choice" of the people until red-box and netflix came around so did they really love blockbuster or just had no better choice until it was presented. There is a myth that demand comes before supply. It needs to present itself because people don't really know what they want until they see it.
Cshannon, I would first suggest trying to do local architect search for Chicago, or even some other nearby city or town. E-mail or call a few, and let them know the work you are doing, how large the space is, what the extent of services is that you need (it seems like you might only need some space planning for laying out the new rooms and maybe some furniture, just to make sure your rooms work for their intended use). You can then find out what their fees might be, and maybe they will offer a consultation at your home. Maybe you've done all of this already, and the project is just too small or their fee is just too high.
If you can't find anyone suitable in the area to do your project, feel free to e-mail me and hopefully I can help.
In general, the earlier (or higher ranked on the search results page),
and more frequently a site appears in the search results list,
the more visitors it will receive from the search engine's users. http://www.wematis.de By 1997,
search engines recognized that webmasters were making efforts to rank well
in their search engines, and that some webmasters were even manipulating their
rankings in search results by stuffing pages with excessive or irrelevant keywords. http://www.wematis.de
Early search engines, such as Altavista and Infoseek,
adjusted their algorithms in an effort to prevent webmasters from manipulating rankings.
Value. It comes down to perceived value. Dr's and lawyers and accountants all offer a "perceived" value. I could do my taxes, but I hate them. I can manage my health 99.9% of the time (and I do), I need a lawyer, like, what, twice in my life now (for less than 2 hours). But they offer a value with their expertise.
Now look at consumers. Think iPods, iPhones, etc. Apple has clearly demonstrated that people will pay up for that "perceived" value. That value is great design and build quality, branded clearly and consistently.
So, imho, until architecture offers a value it will get relegated to the lowest common denominator, which is your local builder with no design.
I ramble about this all too often here, so I'll leave it at that, but I strongly believe until design becomes architecture's primary message, it will be lowered in standards (though this will continue to promote "stararchitects" that understand the branded solution of quality design).
Design is the only element of architecture that cannot be easily attained by anyone else in the building profession. It also takes unique talent, which is rarer still.
Put another way, if I was building a home for $250k (before land) and I could get a "builder" to make one for $25k less than an "architect", why would I hire an architect? The only reason would be better design (construction quality remains the same, in fact every other part is the same, it is only the design that would offer "value")
buildings are not all architecture. As for design being the main focus I totally agree but by design we need to think bigger than just aesthetics and focus on quality of life issues as well as function and efficiency from an economic and energy perspective. The i-pod and i-phone people buy them because they work good, look good, and are reasonably priced. If we can do the same for housing communities they will buy it. No reason that KB and all these terrible developers should be beating us in the home market, especially when these communities suck and people generally hate them but have no other options (speaking from pesonal experiance)
Unless you consider monumental public works, Architects have never built for the 99%. There is no out-dated business model because there was no business model to begin with. The problem is that there are too many Architects.
The biggest reason is that most architect offices go after big jobs then eventually they keep getting these big jobs, company grows, and they need to keep getting big jobs to pay the bills, if they take a small job they will money thats the bottom line i think.
cshannon, welcome! no need to be shy - you're describing a very legitimate project for an architect's involvement.
I've done a similar project to what you're describing and enjoyed it very much. In my case the contractor contacted me himself, and put me in touch with his client who lived in a rural town about an hour outside of the city. He's really an amazing builder - the single most competent contractor I've ever worked with - but he had been working with her on her house renovation and quickly realized that he wasn't going to be able to offer a very good design. So he brought me in and we really had a lot of fun. I proposed an hourly fee with a not-to-exceed cap, and kept her very informed as to exactly how much time I was spending on what so that if she ever felt uncomfortable she should ask me to stop work. I developed 3 different quick schematic schemes for her, she picked one & we fleshed it out with some more detail, and then I passed it off to the contractor who worked with her to build. In the end they stuck about 90% to the plans but changed a few things around in the bathroom & kitchen when they got a good deal on some different fixtures that didn't quite fit with plan. In the end she found the cost reasonable (was satisfied with the billing & never wanted me to stop work) and we definitely together came up with a design that fit her needs much better than what the contractor was planning to do. To be honest I enjoyed the whole process. It feels fantastic to know you are helping someone enjoy their space more than they would otherwise have, and to feel like you are really providing maximized value for cost at the same time. Very happy experience.
I live in Chicago and would be happy to talk with you about your project if you'd like.
aw crap this thread was a huge disappointment. hey j.arleo, everything you've said kind of bugs me a bit. i feel like you're stuck in this framework that misses the point about a progressive movement like occupy. i mean, you sound like the 1% to me. talking about tapping into markets and what not, right away you framed the question by asking how can architects provide single family houses for the 99%. i mean, that seems odd to me. i don't think contemporary style single family homes will be a pivotal concern for what will hopefully one day be a post occupy world. people just want to not foreclose on (or move back into) the homes they already have. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/11/occupy-our-homes-brooklyn_n_1140324.html
rather, i think if architecture is to align with the 99%, it should be working to eradicate corporate greed and systems of inequality from the profession. i immediately think of the barclay's center in brooklyn designed by shop architects. the developer forced people out of their homes in order to build a basketball arena and mixed use housing and retail towers, which stands to make a lot of money for investors...as always directly on the backs of the poor and middle class. it's that kind of thing that needs to stop. Not just to provide cheap design services for single family homes, but provide work that benefits all people and doesn't engage in these functioning systems of corporate profiteering. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-03-01/local/27057666_1_atlantic-yards-project-forest-city-ratner-court-ruling-marks
and to donna: was that intentional humor? all those buildings are definitely not for the 99%. big oil, industrial agriculture and farming, and...i don't know what strip malls represent...maybe greedy, short-sighted developers?
You miss the point Micah. Maybe I was not clear. It’s not about single family homes and sleek contemporary style it is about good design. It is about trying to reach a market that occupies 99% of the built environment. The sustainability of our cities will not be even dented by a single green roof library, and significant impact in our quality of life will not be made by a single public project that one may visit once a year. As I said, the urban design of neighborhoods is more important as well as the ability to support localization of production, community, and economy. As for me sounding like the 1%, ha-ha that’s a joke if you knew me (I am drinking a 40 of piss warm beer as I write this). Occupy is not going to stop corporate greed period. Sorry to sound like such a pessimist, I too have been out there protesting, but to bring attention and annoy the greedy bastards not to stop greed, are you that naïve to think the rich are going to give up their money and power over a protest, a real all out revolution is not going to happen in this country unless things get much more desperate. You say eradicate corporate greed, ok sounds good to me, but corporate greed is not going away unless the money is sucked away from the big businesses by small businesses. That is not an easy task since the opposite has been the trend for the last 40 years. If you want to destroy Wal-Mart city USA or projects like barclays, you must design an alternative to it that is attainable by the everyday people. This cannot be done if we simply give form to projects that are determined by the greedy developer. Architects have failed in this arena. Developers won. Let’s beat the developers by replacing their Sony Walkman with an i-pod, that’s all I am saying. Rather than simply accepting the will of the epoch, we need to design the epoch and create projects that are the catalyst for un-realized demand. With no alternative to the shit mcmansion auto-oriented suburb where kids can't play in the street without getting run over by a retarded asshole driving 50 mph while posting meaningless shit on Facebook that no one gives a shit about, people in the 99% will never benefit from architecture except for the one time a year they visit a museum or library, and we architects will continue to surrender a huge market to the greedy developers who will design garbage environments for people to live in. We need to take a more proactive role and act like developers and build better communities that people can afford (rent or buy). If these communities can promote small business and make big business impossible to support it will be the best way to revolt from this corporate city. I don’t know why this bothers you. And yes, the traditional model of architecture as a service is the problem, architecture as an entrepreneurial endeavor is the only way we will ever be able to design what should be built rather than what we are told to build. My argument is that if you know Mcdonalds is shit but fills a market for cheap food than open a cheap healthy alternative and people will eat it. If no client is asking for this because they only care about bottom line, then maybe the architect who is concerned with not only profit but also quality of the built environment should take a proactive role and build it themself without a client.
1. ALL emphasis is placed on licensure and following the traditional career path. This is soooo sloooow, makes absolutely zero financial sense (if you were young and evaluating your personal roi, which should be taught).
2. See #1, Jobs and other entrepreneurial visionaries succeed because they jump over any obstacles. They can do whatever their imagination lets them. They create something, get funded and move upwords (or not). With architecture there is zero, zippo, interest or effort put forth to promote visionary thinking. Innovation? Hell no, until there is a streamlined path to become an "architect", there will never, ever be true innovation. Takes too long. People need to take an idea, run with it and then reap the rewards if they are successful. Pretty simple, really, but architecture likes to eat its own and stagnate any progress by doing stupid things like prosecuting people (educated, in architecture) for calling themselves an "architect". Where's the f'in' logic in that?! Oh, right, we don't want progress or change, I forgot.
3. See #1. Until there is some effort to recruit young, talented people to do "anything", create a business model and run with it, then it will always be a service offered to the wealthy. There will be no risk/reward balance to help encourage outside the box thinking, there will be zero innovation (where's innovation come from? Companies that stand to profit from that innovation, that's where).
Optimistically, I do think there will be more opportunities for the new generation to bypass the old, stagnant model as it sits now. I do think there are rewards to be had (and risks to be taken, as, essentially, architects take very little risk). I welcome that day, and when, if, it comes I will cheer.
oh sorry, i wasn't trying to incite you by saying you were the one 1%. i should have left that out. my apologies.
but i think maybe what this is all boiling down to is that you think architects need to create the demand for better architecture preemptively in order for an architecture of and by the 99% to materialize. on the contrary, i think the reality of those efforts will always be in vain until we first address the policies of our government that undermine the efforts of small business. we as architects need to become political first, before we can become designers...because in this country the small person will always lose. and fixing that is essential to this movement.
Value. It comes down to perceived value. Dr's and lawyers and accountants all offer a "perceived" value.
No. Doctors, lawyers and accountants provide a real value that's not necessarily tangible. It's a sort of je ne sais quoi.
Doctors can keep you alive. Not quality of living is a completely different story than being alive itself. For instance, a great example of this is how they have changed the diagnostic and treatment aspects of prostate cancer. They've discovered that, despite the overwhelming number of men who develop prostate cancer, almost a pretty sizable majority of prostate cancers never become lethal and most are sub-clinical. Keeping you alive would be to simply remove all cancers. However, the downside to this is that there are significant repercussions to quality of life when it comes to removing organs, chemotherapy or other treatment options.
Lawyers keep you out of prison at least more often than not. They also help you mitigate liability and responsibility in civil matters. They can also fight for you and recoup lost damages from offending and non-paying parties.
And accountants keep you out of prison by making sure your business runs within applicable laws and ensuring you pay applicable taxes. Accountants can also help you with reducing your business costs, discovering over and under payments, negotiate terms for contracts and proposals and generally assist in general business operations.
A doctor makes you money by ensuring your body works.
A lawyer makes you money by ensuring your body stays free.
An accountant determines how much money your body makes and how much more it could feasibly make.
Architecture, on the other hand, doesn't make you money unless it is designed to make you money. It, like a funerary urn, only houses your body.
Which brings me to the point Donna brought up earlier...
Wait…isn't every strip mall, gas station, and Applebee's for the 99%? Don't architects do all those buildings?
Architecture for the 99% isn't designed to make the 99% money, it is designed to liberate money from the 99%. In a more traditional less leisure-based economy, money is suppose to cycle a few times before it eventually leaves the area eventually returning as an investment or government expense. There's a huge shift in economic potential when development patterns are changed even remotely.
An increase of density from 3,000 people per square mile to 4,500 people per square mile is the difference between gas stations and Pizza Huts to restaurants, gyms, department stores and small industry. Go from 4,500 people per square mile to 6,000 people per square mile, office buildings, public transportation, commuter trains, major industries and luxury retailers become possibilities. And 6,000 people per square mile isn't even particularly dense, you could still easily have a pretty suburban environment at that level of density.
The greatest defense the 99% has against governments and corporations is "higher-density" productive "urban" environments. Thoughtfully made cities provide a wide range of opportunities in business, investment and living options by increasing the number of potential customers, decreasing barriers to transportation and movement and eliminating large long-term lease landlords from owning massive parcels of land.
I think those lines are a lot more blurry than that. I've never, ever been to a dr to save my life, nor have I ever been to a lawyer to keep my out of jail. Those are obviously the most important parts of either field, but a small portion of the overall services offered.
Architecture, while not directly (just like dr's and lawyer's cannot make you more money, directly, they are more about "saving" things), can certainly help. There is a "perceived" value to quality design.
I agree thoughtfully made cities are crucial to the future. There was some promise (at least to my knowledge) before the crash. There were plenty of high density, no/minimal car, transit oriented developments with all the amenities to keep people from having traveled far. Sadly, now that everything is rental based, those are all dead. Without people investing in their location, we won't get anywhere.
That's down to politics and economics, though, I don't really see how it has much to do with architecture.
Micha no problem, I see what you are saying and agree 100% with the idea that policies need to change, but the built environment is being dictated by developers for the most part. Since the middle and working class have little-no ability to influence the built environment through direct intervention (hiring an architect and building what they really want) then the only way they will ever be able to have influence is through choice by consumerism. I think it has to do with the idea that demand is generated by the people when in reality it is generated by the choices available. For instance, the i-pod had zero demand for it until it was on the market. The visionaries behind it took some risk based on research, but there was no demand at first. Developers commision things that are in demand, they are not in general looking outside the box or trying to invent, so if we as architects accept this, innovation will be bound to the parameters that they determine which is not enough. In reality the 1% is dictating how people will live, this is in their narrow vision and ideology and is always status quo or mainstream. Its like rap music in the early days. Rap was not really allowed to go to far because the record labels had an interest to keep it mainstream. This changed when rappers and black entrepeneurs started their own lables inorder to allow for creative freedom, and to fill a market that they knew existed but was too far from the cultural norm for the conservative white lables to understand. If more architects were taking on the dual role of developer and designer then there may be a chance to out compete the crappy environments that are being made for the people by giving them an alternative; something more real. At the same time we would be able to incorporate energy efficient passive design, possibly urban agriculture, walkability, small business, markets, etc.
Let's use the analogy of the car which was thrown into one of these threads earlier. From a design perspective, a Shelby Cobra would be considered a car worthy of all designers praise. historically significant and defining the genre. The price reflects this. A Shelby Cobra is not a car available to the 99%.
Does that mean that the 99% is underserved by not being able to own and drive a Shelby Cobra?
No. They can buy a Toyota Corolla, and functionally, it will perform the same basic tasks that the Shelby will. Is this fair? I would say yes. If you want a cobra and you don't have the money to buy it then go find the money. If you don't need a cobra and can only afford a Corolla...well, there you go. For me, Equality has nothing to do with it. This is a quality of life issue. Maybe my quality of life will be improved if I can own and drive a Shelby Cobra, but you might be perfectly happy with a Corolla? As an Architect it is your responsibility to help the 99% decide if design is going to improve their quality of life. To just blatantly assume that it will is disingenuous.
One last question. The fact that the corolla was designed to be a low maintenance, dependable and affordable vehicle, does that make it any less of a car?
What about res4architecture? http://re4a.com/ I think the issue here is economy of scale. Everything else is mass produced, and hence cheaper than it would be if it was a custom one -off. Therefore, people aren't used to paying premiums for bespoke products, but as mentioned above architecture wants to be bespoke.
So how do you work smart enough to achieve an economy of scale that most people would be willing to pay for without creating an ikea of architecture?
the car example is one of luxury vs. utility, and with that yes luxury will be expensive and should be, but the architecture debate differs because it is not about creating luxury for the 99% it is about creating "environments worth caring about." it is much more fundamental and necessary to the social and mental life of individuals to create enriching environments. The architecture does not need to be about luxury it needs to be about the basics of a sustainable and social living arrangement where the environment can act to empower the people in it rather than simply suck their money away into the abyss of the corporate consumer scape. This can be done with cow shit and straw construction, it dosent really matter. It is more important to design human scaled communities (with efficient yet beautiful housing) where a person can buy bread from mike the baker rather than foodcity, and where a dwelling can use passive principals to save energy and connect people to the rythms of nature. This cold anti-social living arrangement that sprawls the landscape is not the best we could do period. How can we do it better?
Which, for better or worse, is generally as good or better a performer. Back to the Shelby (which is, like 45 years old?), it has zero reliability, almost zero functionality (no safety, no reliability, no slalom performance, etc.). It is cool, I really love them, but it can't really compare. While not nearly as extreme, a new Ferrari is still a beast to keep on the road.
R4A's homes aren't cheap by any stretch of the imagination. Cool, and I have been a fan since they began years ago, but they are more "cool" than a functional reality (like any prefab).
Mass production is what keeps quality high and prices down. But with architecture there are just too many moving targets. We've looked at prefab for multi-family, but gave up because of height restrictions (for the site) - the prefab required an extra foot or so per floor. No savings (though we didn't get too far).
There are possibilities, but it will take true entrepreneurs to pull it off. This will not be an architect, simply because of how slow this profession moves (and the encouragement of stagnating possibilities immediately upon graduation). It will come from visionary developers, most likely working for even larger developers.
By the looks of most of the occupy movement's camps, the architecture of the 99% is a tent. The 1% do not care about architecture - witness Tom and Giselle's house.
The comparison between cars and architecture is valid up until a certain point, being that the vast majority of the places that people occupy are already built. Offering a toyota or a shelby is not an option for those who already have a car, can't afford another one, or cant afford a new one which is the vast majority of people.
Not only are they already built, but by and large they are probably too small, or too large, not insulated, poorly executed, disposable, over valued, forgettable and costly to do anything with.
So what can architecture do? Not much. What can architects do? Quite alot.
i think wurdan freo's comment perfectly highlights the misunderstanding that exists about the occupy movement. this isn't about wanting wealth. the 99% doesn't want to be able to afford a shelby cobra. so no, they are not undeserved and your analogy is completely invalid. it is so incredibly frustrating when i see or hear people say (or in wurdan's case imply that) the occupiers are greedy. the 99% doesn't want to be the 1%. they simply want the opportunity and the rights that this country claims to give its citizens. wurdan, you should focus on the vast inequality that has grown in this country because of the power and influence of the 1%. not material wealth. the saddest part of your analogy is that much of the 99% can't even afford a corolla.
am i alone in finding wurdan's comment insulting and condemnable?
I agree Micah, as I said it is not about wanting luxury it is about wanting a decent environment to live in thats main function is not to create easy access to consumerism. Its about wanting a local deli over Mcdonalds, not wanting a five star restaraunt over Mcdonalds.
To say its either fast-food or 5 star restaraunt undermines the potential of architecture.
Micah - you talk about opportunity and rights and in the same paragraph condemn me for speaking my mind. If that's what the 99% preaches, leave me out of it. I'd rather make my own opportunity, keep the right to say what i want and make my own choices then join with a man or group who will condemn a person for their thoughts in search for the "greater good". Put down the gun and open your mind. You really want to help the 99%. Start a business and hire them.
The Revised Boy Scout Manual - A must read for all revolutionaries.
For the record, not once did I mention wealth in my post. You interpreted that. As you did my intention to imply occupiers were greedy. In this entire thread, you are the only one who continues to use that word. My point was about helping people decide if design can improve their quality of life. You are going to pay for that improvement in one form or another. For many of us that means making choices about the battles we will fight. Pretty bold for someone who doesn't even know me to tell me how I should focus my life.
While it may have been just an analogy, the sad fact is that for a lot of people their environment makes the decision to go to McDonald's and consume very easy if not close to necessary. Believe it or not, a person can be a savy "dollar menu" eater and spend less to survive than it would take to buy groceries and prepare their own meals. So to answer FRaC's question, the current state of architecture for the 99% is forcing someone to go to McDonald's and consume.
You could just not eat (if you're a right wing nut with no concept of reality)
Or build your own deli and hire some people to work there (if you're a right wing nut with no concept of reality)
Then you can sell $1 sandwiches with healthy stuff in it, because since you're already a right wing nut with no concept of reality you don't really have to consider the cost of your product or the cost to run the restaurant or the cost to hire people. You just get to live in right wing nut happy fantasy land.
There are lots of small businesses that sell cheap but good food. Problem is that the car oriented city is not designed in their favor. However there are walable pockets here and there where they do pretty well. If we could design neighborhoods that support these places they will eventually fill in. They are mice in the savanna competing for food with lions. Mice to survive occupy microhabitats where lions cannot go. They create their own world within a world free from that impossible competition. I did my thesis on this idea and I found that the fabric of a community can act to promote or prevent small business growth, and can also prevent or promote certain corporate business growth. Sounds obvious, but this means we can design communities that directly influence one of the most problematic trends over the last 40 years.
The question is how do we change this? How do we gain influence over the "pop" landscape. Like I said the individual 99%er will not be able to directly fund anything, so how do architects that want to do this type of work, fund this type of work. Is it impossible?
designing, building, and selling may be better than designing for someone else to build and sell in the case of housing and retail come the next building boom (if there is one)
The masses are a lost cause....best we can hope for are a precious few who want something better...and if there are those precious few, that they turn to someone who can actually provide something better.
Like I said the individual 99%er will not be able to directly fund anything, so how do architects that want to do this type of work, fund this type of work. Is it impossible?
architecture for the 99%
A huge segment of the population is underserved by architecture. I don't know anyone who EVER used an architect. I know many people who have used lawyers, doctors, but no architects. Anyone know of any firms that focus on architecture for everyday folks. I am not talkling about third world countries and poverty stricken areas, but middle class/working class demographics. Is there a market for this assuming a better economy in the future?
Please reference this forum:
http://archinect.com/forum/thread/35627664/design-my-master-bath-for-200
So this guy thinks we can design a bathroom in 4 hours and our time is worth about $50/hr. There are perhaps some assumptions to be made based on our real life experiences, such as the probability that they won't like your first or sixth design, so you would you have to work through a few iterations, probably help with finish selection and the sorts of things that are common on most projects similar to this. For $200. That's probably a fair guess of what the middle class has to spend.
I would love to see a business plan of sorts relative to what you might be thinking here. What sort of project scope are you thinking, and what sort of fees would you charge? What are your related expenses (such as travel, health insurance, EandO, etc.)? Can you make enough to eat, even if it's only peanut butter and jelly sandwiches? What sort of income would your potential client have to work with? Can they afford to pay you?
I'll will start by making up some numbers real quick: Let's try a house. I'm thinking middle class somewhere around $50,000/year income or $4,000/month. I bet you could get a fair $1,500/mo mortgage somewhere in that area, maybe a $150,000 house. That should be about $100/sf for a 1,500sf house. This is assuming a pretty smart client that hasn't racked up student loan and credit card debts (also no taxes figured in).
Can anyone with more experience than me extrapolate on this? Can we build a residential house for a middle income client and still get high enough design fees that we can maintain our own middle class lifestyle? Or do we think a 300sf house is all middle income people should be able to afford, and they should still hire an architect for that? Or can we create a plan more tailored to either whole-house renovations, or specific room renovations?
Yeah but the cost of the land will shoot that price up to like 250k most likely, so what I was wondering is if there are any "good architecture" subdivisions or townhousing communities that can compete in price with the KB home type crap. Don't have to be fancy, but just good basic design and urban plan. Any firms that specialise in this type of work, if so, how do they make a buck? Possibly design build firms? It is probably not going to work from a business perspective if the client pays you directly if that makes any sense, but rather a developer that will build affordable middle/working class housing that is architecture rather than mcmansion crap. With that, there may be some room for customization within a reasonable range and some client-architect collaboration, as there is some room for customization (colors etc.) when a model home is sold in a new crappy subdivision. The best example I can think of right now is the stuff that Brad Pitts organization is building in New Orleans, but these homes are not really affordable the cost is subsidised by the NPO ect... Seems like a huge market that we totally gave away to developers, even in this economy there is still housing being built due to the fact that there are no homes on the market except cash only forclosures and shortsales that are very hard to get with a conventional loan and impossible with an FHA.
Housing is a need not a luxury, and architects need to corner the market on more needs rather than wants in my opinion. It's why doctors and lawyers are still doing well after all.
Also, the rental market is very strong. These homes if built cheap enough could be rented for the time being until the buyer market picks up.
Also curtram, you bring up a good point about billing. No One other than rich people are going to pay hourly fees to an architect. This is scary to most people. I really think that this is a huge problem in the profession and shows a great lack of business creativity. I was talking to an economics friend of mine and he was laughing at how stupid we are. this business model is so outdated and out of touch with our society. People want to know how much something will cost. They are used to products that they can see and a set price not a service that takes time and has uncertain outcomes. I think if we want to tap into the middle class market we need a totally new business model that will allow for the building of a product to be sold to a client with some room for customization. Does this make sense?
Isnt that what the who Pre-Fab thing was supposed to address? It will have to also come down to simpler less expensive materials, less square footage, etc..The middle class doesnt want to look like they live middle class, they want the huge valted foyers, granite countertops, huge luxurious bathrooms, and bedrooms larger than most apartments I lived in when in college...People say the love the simplicity of an Eichler, buy one, then strip it of all its simplicity, then add on to it.. Realtors, builders, developers have dictated how middle class should live..but if an Architect tries to do that, they are labled arrogant...by other Architects..I really believe a certain segment of the middle class will soon be a huge opportunity for good Architecture.
I would like to chime in here although I'm not an architect. Please don't attack me! I wound up here because I am the 99% and I am in need of architectural services that won't cost an arm and a leg. We live in a small rural community about an hour outside of Chicago. No, not a suburb, but an actual tiny little town surrounded by corn fields. Our house is a lovely little bungalow with a walk up but unfinished attic. We are in the planning stages of finishing the attic. I'm trying to design the space myself. Tthe norm out here is to hire a contractor, tell him you want two beds and a bath and hope for the best. So I think your idea of architecture for the people is a great idea. I mean the guy we're going to hire knows how to build, but I've seen houses he's built and he's no designer. Our mortgage is only 450 a month and we have a tiny budget for the work we need to have done. My husband and I will do all the finish work such as tiling, woodwork, and flooring. So what someone in our situation needs is NOT detailed drawings, but a general layout. (unlike the guy who wants the $200 bathroom) So I'm interested in what an architect's view on that is.
kevin, pre-fab is a problem because one needs a site, so they are typically rural or mobile home parks. Most middle class people want to live in specific suburban or urban areas where small lots are scarce and usually in this market as expensive as a lot with a home on it. They are also much tougher to get loans for, most banks won't touch them. As for dictating how people live, providing choice alternatives to mcmansions frees people from being told how to live. I would have bought architecture if I could, but instead I live in a crappy subdivision because it was all I could afford. I agree with you that it will appeal to a certain segment of the middle class only, but I would bet that there is a huge un-tapped market out there (once the economy picks up anyway). Also the urban plan is as important or more than the house itself. Why can't we design walkable affordable communities, it just dosent make sense why walkable areas are always for the wealthy. communal parking areas, and streets for pedestrians and emegency vehicles only should be cheaper to build than garages and driveways for every house. I think many people would want this.
Part of an Architect's job is to help the owner realize if their project is feasible or not. So we ask questions.
Do you know what you want?
What is it?
What colors do you like?
Who's going to use the space?
Are you living in the house for twenty years or are you moving in the next 5 years?
How will your needs change over that time frame?
What is your budget? Is it realistic?
Are you paying cash or financing the project?
How much of this are you doing yourself?
Are you legally allowed to do all the work you are considering to do your self?
How old is your house?
How well has it been maintained?
How do you know you don't need detailed drawings? (May be required for the permit process even though the contractor is very capable)
Some of these questions we resolve by doing a thorough review of the home.
Some of them are resolved through our conversations and others through research. All of this before we even start "drawing"
Hopefully you can begin to see how this can take time and we have to make the choice, am I going to spend my time doing work that is going to put food on my table, build my business and allow me to be productive? Sometimes we can choose to do work pro bono, but one of my biggest pet peeves is when someone is looking for something for free but acting as if they are going to pay you for the work. I'm sure there are many on this page that would be willing to discuss these issues with you.
I'm assuming that by finishing your attic it will be improving you quality of life. So you have to ask yourself, it I won't pay an arm and a leg for this, how much will I pay for an improvement in the quality of my life. Only you can answer that question. If you are going to ask an Architect to help you do that then there needs to be a benefit to them for providing those services for you. The benefits that I contemplate when considering a new client are the commission, the client and the project. Sometimes I will choose a project because I need the money. Sometimes I choose a project because I want to work with a specific client. Sometimes I choose a project because the project itself is something I want to be a part of.
Architecture for the 99%?
Wait…isn't every strip mall, gas station, and Applebee's for the 99%? Don't architects do all those buildings?
Our society is need of major change, re organization, and a new way of thinking. When the current way's finish collapsing architects will be in great demand. However it will be a much diferent scene. maybe you can help design and build a sustainable small town that is not dependant on the world government. Maybe have the oppurtunity to design and build a fully sustainanble environment with much less options and using only what is around or can be created on site. More like a third world country. Designers and engineers will have the oppurtunity to create a new world. Hopefully one that is not designed for collapse and destruction like the curent system. We will be faced with major challenges, and great rewards. I dont see any future in modern architecture or the modern monetary system. Lets build a better world from the ground up~
Where I live in Calgary, Canada, there is one company I know of. Housebrand is their name they also run the slowhome studio. My old prof (current U of Calgary Prof) started it to bring to fruition his idea that the average homebuyer could buy a home designed for them by an architect. Check them out, they do good work.
Donna..yes we did, then all the funding went away...
You could focus on designing apartments instead of single family houses..
kevin what you describe may be what many middle class american's want but certainly not myself or others that i know...
Nam, thats what I'm saying, so why is the market not being filled if there is some demand? The demand is probably much greater than we think. I know alot of non-architects who live in suburbia and hate it, but since urban living has become increasingly expensive, it is really the only option especially when you have a family and require larger living space then you can get in a city on a middle-working class wage. Is it a matter of cost? Also, as I said I think the real opportunity is not in the style of the house or the individual unit but in the design of community so developers need to get on board. People really hate the anti-social suburban environment. Think BedZed in England, why is this such an anomally, and so absent in the US? Seems like the demand is much greater than the supply. Is it a lack of vision by developers, or is the typical business model of arch firms obstructing these kind of projects from being more common? Free-market or consumer driven market seems not so free without real choice available. Blockbuster video was the "top choice" of the people until red-box and netflix came around so did they really love blockbuster or just had no better choice until it was presented. There is a myth that demand comes before supply. It needs to present itself because people don't really know what they want until they see it.
Cshannon, I would first suggest trying to do local architect search for Chicago, or even some other nearby city or town. E-mail or call a few, and let them know the work you are doing, how large the space is, what the extent of services is that you need (it seems like you might only need some space planning for laying out the new rooms and maybe some furniture, just to make sure your rooms work for their intended use). You can then find out what their fees might be, and maybe they will offer a consultation at your home. Maybe you've done all of this already, and the project is just too small or their fee is just too high.
If you can't find anyone suitable in the area to do your project, feel free to e-mail me and hopefully I can help.
In general, the earlier (or higher ranked on the search results page),
and more frequently a site appears in the search results list,
the more visitors it will receive from the search engine's users. http://www.wematis.de By 1997,
search engines recognized that webmasters were making efforts to rank well
in their search engines, and that some webmasters were even manipulating their
rankings in search results by stuffing pages with excessive or irrelevant keywords. http://www.wematis.de
Early search engines, such as Altavista and Infoseek,
adjusted their algorithms in an effort to prevent webmasters from manipulating rankings.
Value. It comes down to perceived value. Dr's and lawyers and accountants all offer a "perceived" value. I could do my taxes, but I hate them. I can manage my health 99.9% of the time (and I do), I need a lawyer, like, what, twice in my life now (for less than 2 hours). But they offer a value with their expertise.
Now look at consumers. Think iPods, iPhones, etc. Apple has clearly demonstrated that people will pay up for that "perceived" value. That value is great design and build quality, branded clearly and consistently.
So, imho, until architecture offers a value it will get relegated to the lowest common denominator, which is your local builder with no design.
I ramble about this all too often here, so I'll leave it at that, but I strongly believe until design becomes architecture's primary message, it will be lowered in standards (though this will continue to promote "stararchitects" that understand the branded solution of quality design).
Design is the only element of architecture that cannot be easily attained by anyone else in the building profession. It also takes unique talent, which is rarer still.
Put another way, if I was building a home for $250k (before land) and I could get a "builder" to make one for $25k less than an "architect", why would I hire an architect? The only reason would be better design (construction quality remains the same, in fact every other part is the same, it is only the design that would offer "value")
buildings are not all architecture. As for design being the main focus I totally agree but by design we need to think bigger than just aesthetics and focus on quality of life issues as well as function and efficiency from an economic and energy perspective. The i-pod and i-phone people buy them because they work good, look good, and are reasonably priced. If we can do the same for housing communities they will buy it. No reason that KB and all these terrible developers should be beating us in the home market, especially when these communities suck and people generally hate them but have no other options (speaking from pesonal experiance)
Unless you consider monumental public works, Architects have never built for the 99%. There is no out-dated business model because there was no business model to begin with. The problem is that there are too many Architects.
The biggest reason is that most architect offices go after big jobs then eventually they keep getting these big jobs, company grows, and they need to keep getting big jobs to pay the bills, if they take a small job they will money thats the bottom line i think.
cshannon, welcome! no need to be shy - you're describing a very legitimate project for an architect's involvement.
I've done a similar project to what you're describing and enjoyed it very much. In my case the contractor contacted me himself, and put me in touch with his client who lived in a rural town about an hour outside of the city. He's really an amazing builder - the single most competent contractor I've ever worked with - but he had been working with her on her house renovation and quickly realized that he wasn't going to be able to offer a very good design. So he brought me in and we really had a lot of fun. I proposed an hourly fee with a not-to-exceed cap, and kept her very informed as to exactly how much time I was spending on what so that if she ever felt uncomfortable she should ask me to stop work. I developed 3 different quick schematic schemes for her, she picked one & we fleshed it out with some more detail, and then I passed it off to the contractor who worked with her to build. In the end they stuck about 90% to the plans but changed a few things around in the bathroom & kitchen when they got a good deal on some different fixtures that didn't quite fit with plan. In the end she found the cost reasonable (was satisfied with the billing & never wanted me to stop work) and we definitely together came up with a design that fit her needs much better than what the contractor was planning to do. To be honest I enjoyed the whole process. It feels fantastic to know you are helping someone enjoy their space more than they would otherwise have, and to feel like you are really providing maximized value for cost at the same time. Very happy experience.
I live in Chicago and would be happy to talk with you about your project if you'd like.
aw crap this thread was a huge disappointment. hey j.arleo, everything you've said kind of bugs me a bit. i feel like you're stuck in this framework that misses the point about a progressive movement like occupy. i mean, you sound like the 1% to me. talking about tapping into markets and what not, right away you framed the question by asking how can architects provide single family houses for the 99%. i mean, that seems odd to me. i don't think contemporary style single family homes will be a pivotal concern for what will hopefully one day be a post occupy world. people just want to not foreclose on (or move back into) the homes they already have. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/11/occupy-our-homes-brooklyn_n_1140324.html
rather, i think if architecture is to align with the 99%, it should be working to eradicate corporate greed and systems of inequality from the profession. i immediately think of the barclay's center in brooklyn designed by shop architects. the developer forced people out of their homes in order to build a basketball arena and mixed use housing and retail towers, which stands to make a lot of money for investors...as always directly on the backs of the poor and middle class. it's that kind of thing that needs to stop. Not just to provide cheap design services for single family homes, but provide work that benefits all people and doesn't engage in these functioning systems of corporate profiteering. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-03-01/local/27057666_1_atlantic-yards-project-forest-city-ratner-court-ruling-marks
and to donna: was that intentional humor? all those buildings are definitely not for the 99%. big oil, industrial agriculture and farming, and...i don't know what strip malls represent...maybe greedy, short-sighted developers?
You miss the point Micah. Maybe I was not clear. It’s not about single family homes and sleek contemporary style it is about good design. It is about trying to reach a market that occupies 99% of the built environment. The sustainability of our cities will not be even dented by a single green roof library, and significant impact in our quality of life will not be made by a single public project that one may visit once a year. As I said, the urban design of neighborhoods is more important as well as the ability to support localization of production, community, and economy. As for me sounding like the 1%, ha-ha that’s a joke if you knew me (I am drinking a 40 of piss warm beer as I write this). Occupy is not going to stop corporate greed period. Sorry to sound like such a pessimist, I too have been out there protesting, but to bring attention and annoy the greedy bastards not to stop greed, are you that naïve to think the rich are going to give up their money and power over a protest, a real all out revolution is not going to happen in this country unless things get much more desperate. You say eradicate corporate greed, ok sounds good to me, but corporate greed is not going away unless the money is sucked away from the big businesses by small businesses. That is not an easy task since the opposite has been the trend for the last 40 years. If you want to destroy Wal-Mart city USA or projects like barclays, you must design an alternative to it that is attainable by the everyday people. This cannot be done if we simply give form to projects that are determined by the greedy developer. Architects have failed in this arena. Developers won. Let’s beat the developers by replacing their Sony Walkman with an i-pod, that’s all I am saying. Rather than simply accepting the will of the epoch, we need to design the epoch and create projects that are the catalyst for un-realized demand. With no alternative to the shit mcmansion auto-oriented suburb where kids can't play in the street without getting run over by a retarded asshole driving 50 mph while posting meaningless shit on Facebook that no one gives a shit about, people in the 99% will never benefit from architecture except for the one time a year they visit a museum or library, and we architects will continue to surrender a huge market to the greedy developers who will design garbage environments for people to live in. We need to take a more proactive role and act like developers and build better communities that people can afford (rent or buy). If these communities can promote small business and make big business impossible to support it will be the best way to revolt from this corporate city. I don’t know why this bothers you. And yes, the traditional model of architecture as a service is the problem, architecture as an entrepreneurial endeavor is the only way we will ever be able to design what should be built rather than what we are told to build. My argument is that if you know Mcdonalds is shit but fills a market for cheap food than open a cheap healthy alternative and people will eat it. If no client is asking for this because they only care about bottom line, then maybe the architect who is concerned with not only profit but also quality of the built environment should take a proactive role and build it themself without a client.
to add to this way too long post...why don't we see more investor/inventors like steve jobs in this industry?
I'll tell you why:
1. ALL emphasis is placed on licensure and following the traditional career path. This is soooo sloooow, makes absolutely zero financial sense (if you were young and evaluating your personal roi, which should be taught).
2. See #1, Jobs and other entrepreneurial visionaries succeed because they jump over any obstacles. They can do whatever their imagination lets them. They create something, get funded and move upwords (or not). With architecture there is zero, zippo, interest or effort put forth to promote visionary thinking. Innovation? Hell no, until there is a streamlined path to become an "architect", there will never, ever be true innovation. Takes too long. People need to take an idea, run with it and then reap the rewards if they are successful. Pretty simple, really, but architecture likes to eat its own and stagnate any progress by doing stupid things like prosecuting people (educated, in architecture) for calling themselves an "architect". Where's the f'in' logic in that?! Oh, right, we don't want progress or change, I forgot.
3. See #1. Until there is some effort to recruit young, talented people to do "anything", create a business model and run with it, then it will always be a service offered to the wealthy. There will be no risk/reward balance to help encourage outside the box thinking, there will be zero innovation (where's innovation come from? Companies that stand to profit from that innovation, that's where).
Optimistically, I do think there will be more opportunities for the new generation to bypass the old, stagnant model as it sits now. I do think there are rewards to be had (and risks to be taken, as, essentially, architects take very little risk). I welcome that day, and when, if, it comes I will cheer.
oh sorry, i wasn't trying to incite you by saying you were the one 1%. i should have left that out. my apologies.
but i think maybe what this is all boiling down to is that you think architects need to create the demand for better architecture preemptively in order for an architecture of and by the 99% to materialize. on the contrary, i think the reality of those efforts will always be in vain until we first address the policies of our government that undermine the efforts of small business. we as architects need to become political first, before we can become designers...because in this country the small person will always lose. and fixing that is essential to this movement.
Value. It comes down to perceived value. Dr's and lawyers and accountants all offer a "perceived" value.
No. Doctors, lawyers and accountants provide a real value that's not necessarily tangible. It's a sort of je ne sais quoi.
Doctors can keep you alive. Not quality of living is a completely different story than being alive itself. For instance, a great example of this is how they have changed the diagnostic and treatment aspects of prostate cancer. They've discovered that, despite the overwhelming number of men who develop prostate cancer, almost a pretty sizable majority of prostate cancers never become lethal and most are sub-clinical. Keeping you alive would be to simply remove all cancers. However, the downside to this is that there are significant repercussions to quality of life when it comes to removing organs, chemotherapy or other treatment options.
Lawyers keep you out of prison at least more often than not. They also help you mitigate liability and responsibility in civil matters. They can also fight for you and recoup lost damages from offending and non-paying parties.
And accountants keep you out of prison by making sure your business runs within applicable laws and ensuring you pay applicable taxes. Accountants can also help you with reducing your business costs, discovering over and under payments, negotiate terms for contracts and proposals and generally assist in general business operations.
A doctor makes you money by ensuring your body works.
A lawyer makes you money by ensuring your body stays free.
An accountant determines how much money your body makes and how much more it could feasibly make.
Architecture, on the other hand, doesn't make you money unless it is designed to make you money. It, like a funerary urn, only houses your body.
Which brings me to the point Donna brought up earlier...
Wait…isn't every strip mall, gas station, and Applebee's for the 99%? Don't architects do all those buildings?
Architecture for the 99% isn't designed to make the 99% money, it is designed to liberate money from the 99%. In a more traditional less leisure-based economy, money is suppose to cycle a few times before it eventually leaves the area eventually returning as an investment or government expense. There's a huge shift in economic potential when development patterns are changed even remotely.
An increase of density from 3,000 people per square mile to 4,500 people per square mile is the difference between gas stations and Pizza Huts to restaurants, gyms, department stores and small industry. Go from 4,500 people per square mile to 6,000 people per square mile, office buildings, public transportation, commuter trains, major industries and luxury retailers become possibilities. And 6,000 people per square mile isn't even particularly dense, you could still easily have a pretty suburban environment at that level of density.
The greatest defense the 99% has against governments and corporations is "higher-density" productive "urban" environments. Thoughtfully made cities provide a wide range of opportunities in business, investment and living options by increasing the number of potential customers, decreasing barriers to transportation and movement and eliminating large long-term lease landlords from owning massive parcels of land.
I think those lines are a lot more blurry than that. I've never, ever been to a dr to save my life, nor have I ever been to a lawyer to keep my out of jail. Those are obviously the most important parts of either field, but a small portion of the overall services offered.
Architecture, while not directly (just like dr's and lawyer's cannot make you more money, directly, they are more about "saving" things), can certainly help. There is a "perceived" value to quality design.
I agree thoughtfully made cities are crucial to the future. There was some promise (at least to my knowledge) before the crash. There were plenty of high density, no/minimal car, transit oriented developments with all the amenities to keep people from having traveled far. Sadly, now that everything is rental based, those are all dead. Without people investing in their location, we won't get anywhere.
That's down to politics and economics, though, I don't really see how it has much to do with architecture.
Micha no problem, I see what you are saying and agree 100% with the idea that policies need to change, but the built environment is being dictated by developers for the most part. Since the middle and working class have little-no ability to influence the built environment through direct intervention (hiring an architect and building what they really want) then the only way they will ever be able to have influence is through choice by consumerism. I think it has to do with the idea that demand is generated by the people when in reality it is generated by the choices available. For instance, the i-pod had zero demand for it until it was on the market. The visionaries behind it took some risk based on research, but there was no demand at first. Developers commision things that are in demand, they are not in general looking outside the box or trying to invent, so if we as architects accept this, innovation will be bound to the parameters that they determine which is not enough. In reality the 1% is dictating how people will live, this is in their narrow vision and ideology and is always status quo or mainstream. Its like rap music in the early days. Rap was not really allowed to go to far because the record labels had an interest to keep it mainstream. This changed when rappers and black entrepeneurs started their own lables inorder to allow for creative freedom, and to fill a market that they knew existed but was too far from the cultural norm for the conservative white lables to understand. If more architects were taking on the dual role of developer and designer then there may be a chance to out compete the crappy environments that are being made for the people by giving them an alternative; something more real. At the same time we would be able to incorporate energy efficient passive design, possibly urban agriculture, walkability, small business, markets, etc.
Let's use the analogy of the car which was thrown into one of these threads earlier. From a design perspective, a Shelby Cobra would be considered a car worthy of all designers praise. historically significant and defining the genre. The price reflects this. A Shelby Cobra is not a car available to the 99%.
Does that mean that the 99% is underserved by not being able to own and drive a Shelby Cobra?
No. They can buy a Toyota Corolla, and functionally, it will perform the same basic tasks that the Shelby will. Is this fair? I would say yes. If you want a cobra and you don't have the money to buy it then go find the money. If you don't need a cobra and can only afford a Corolla...well, there you go. For me, Equality has nothing to do with it. This is a quality of life issue. Maybe my quality of life will be improved if I can own and drive a Shelby Cobra, but you might be perfectly happy with a Corolla? As an Architect it is your responsibility to help the 99% decide if design is going to improve their quality of life. To just blatantly assume that it will is disingenuous.
One last question. The fact that the corolla was designed to be a low maintenance, dependable and affordable vehicle, does that make it any less of a car?
What about res4architecture? http://re4a.com/ I think the issue here is economy of scale. Everything else is mass produced, and hence cheaper than it would be if it was a custom one -off. Therefore, people aren't used to paying premiums for bespoke products, but as mentioned above architecture wants to be bespoke.
So how do you work smart enough to achieve an economy of scale that most people would be willing to pay for without creating an ikea of architecture?
the car example is one of luxury vs. utility, and with that yes luxury will be expensive and should be, but the architecture debate differs because it is not about creating luxury for the 99% it is about creating "environments worth caring about." it is much more fundamental and necessary to the social and mental life of individuals to create enriching environments. The architecture does not need to be about luxury it needs to be about the basics of a sustainable and social living arrangement where the environment can act to empower the people in it rather than simply suck their money away into the abyss of the corporate consumer scape. This can be done with cow shit and straw construction, it dosent really matter. It is more important to design human scaled communities (with efficient yet beautiful housing) where a person can buy bread from mike the baker rather than foodcity, and where a dwelling can use passive principals to save energy and connect people to the rythms of nature. This cold anti-social living arrangement that sprawls the landscape is not the best we could do period. How can we do it better?
"Everyday folks" can't afford architecture any more than they can afford custom tailored clothes, so they buy off the rack.
Which, for better or worse, is generally as good or better a performer. Back to the Shelby (which is, like 45 years old?), it has zero reliability, almost zero functionality (no safety, no reliability, no slalom performance, etc.). It is cool, I really love them, but it can't really compare. While not nearly as extreme, a new Ferrari is still a beast to keep on the road.
R4A's homes aren't cheap by any stretch of the imagination. Cool, and I have been a fan since they began years ago, but they are more "cool" than a functional reality (like any prefab).
Mass production is what keeps quality high and prices down. But with architecture there are just too many moving targets. We've looked at prefab for multi-family, but gave up because of height restrictions (for the site) - the prefab required an extra foot or so per floor. No savings (though we didn't get too far).
There are possibilities, but it will take true entrepreneurs to pull it off. This will not be an architect, simply because of how slow this profession moves (and the encouragement of stagnating possibilities immediately upon graduation). It will come from visionary developers, most likely working for even larger developers.
By the looks of most of the occupy movement's camps, the architecture of the 99% is a tent. The 1% do not care about architecture - witness Tom and Giselle's house.
The comparison between cars and architecture is valid up until a certain point, being that the vast majority of the places that people occupy are already built. Offering a toyota or a shelby is not an option for those who already have a car, can't afford another one, or cant afford a new one which is the vast majority of people.
Not only are they already built, but by and large they are probably too small, or too large, not insulated, poorly executed, disposable, over valued, forgettable and costly to do anything with.
So what can architecture do? Not much. What can architects do? Quite alot.
i think wurdan freo's comment perfectly highlights the misunderstanding that exists about the occupy movement. this isn't about wanting wealth. the 99% doesn't want to be able to afford a shelby cobra. so no, they are not undeserved and your analogy is completely invalid. it is so incredibly frustrating when i see or hear people say (or in wurdan's case imply that) the occupiers are greedy. the 99% doesn't want to be the 1%. they simply want the opportunity and the rights that this country claims to give its citizens. wurdan, you should focus on the vast inequality that has grown in this country because of the power and influence of the 1%. not material wealth. the saddest part of your analogy is that much of the 99% can't even afford a corolla.
am i alone in finding wurdan's comment insulting and condemnable?
I agree Micah, as I said it is not about wanting luxury it is about wanting a decent environment to live in thats main function is not to create easy access to consumerism. Its about wanting a local deli over Mcdonalds, not wanting a five star restaraunt over Mcdonalds.
To say its either fast-food or 5 star restaraunt undermines the potential of architecture.
Micah - you talk about opportunity and rights and in the same paragraph condemn me for speaking my mind. If that's what the 99% preaches, leave me out of it. I'd rather make my own opportunity, keep the right to say what i want and make my own choices then join with a man or group who will condemn a person for their thoughts in search for the "greater good". Put down the gun and open your mind. You really want to help the 99%. Start a business and hire them.
The Revised Boy Scout Manual - A must read for all revolutionaries.
http://ce399.typepad.com/weblog/2005/11/the_revised_boy_2.html
For the record, not once did I mention wealth in my post. You interpreted that. As you did my intention to imply occupiers were greedy. In this entire thread, you are the only one who continues to use that word. My point was about helping people decide if design can improve their quality of life. You are going to pay for that improvement in one form or another. For many of us that means making choices about the battles we will fight. Pretty bold for someone who doesn't even know me to tell me how I should focus my life.
if you don't want mcdonalds then don't go to mcdonalds. what's forcing you to go to mcdonalds and 'consume'?
<sent from my iPhone>
its just an analogy
While it may have been just an analogy, the sad fact is that for a lot of people their environment makes the decision to go to McDonald's and consume very easy if not close to necessary. Believe it or not, a person can be a savy "dollar menu" eater and spend less to survive than it would take to buy groceries and prepare their own meals. So to answer FRaC's question, the current state of architecture for the 99% is forcing someone to go to McDonald's and consume.
You could just not eat (if you're a right wing nut with no concept of reality)
Or build your own deli and hire some people to work there (if you're a right wing nut with no concept of reality)
Then you can sell $1 sandwiches with healthy stuff in it, because since you're already a right wing nut with no concept of reality you don't really have to consider the cost of your product or the cost to run the restaurant or the cost to hire people. You just get to live in right wing nut happy fantasy land.
<sent from Frac's IPhone>
There are lots of small businesses that sell cheap but good food. Problem is that the car oriented city is not designed in their favor. However there are walable pockets here and there where they do pretty well. If we could design neighborhoods that support these places they will eventually fill in. They are mice in the savanna competing for food with lions. Mice to survive occupy microhabitats where lions cannot go. They create their own world within a world free from that impossible competition. I did my thesis on this idea and I found that the fabric of a community can act to promote or prevent small business growth, and can also prevent or promote certain corporate business growth. Sounds obvious, but this means we can design communities that directly influence one of the most problematic trends over the last 40 years.
The question is how do we change this? How do we gain influence over the "pop" landscape. Like I said the individual 99%er will not be able to directly fund anything, so how do architects that want to do this type of work, fund this type of work. Is it impossible?
j.arleo, I think i know the answer to this: open a deli! Did I get it right?
I have no answer just ideas...
designing, building, and selling may be better than designing for someone else to build and sell in the case of housing and retail come the next building boom (if there is one)
The masses are a lost cause....best we can hope for are a precious few who want something better...and if there are those precious few, that they turn to someone who can actually provide something better.
Like I said the individual 99%er will not be able to directly fund anything, so how do architects that want to do this type of work, fund this type of work. Is it impossible?
You become developers.
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.