Archinect
anchor

Architects are facing a silent war

110
x-jla

"A vulgar version of the art"  lol.

Define vulgar?

the problem with your points is that buildings built with or without an architect still must meet code.  The reforms to medicine were reactionary.  There is no crisis to react to other than the fact that architects can't afford a new Porsche and tgat contractors build boring ugly stuff.  While I dislike stucco pillars holding up nothing, tack on tacky stuff,  I  support the right to be ugly.  The fact is that the banal builder houses are no more dangerous than an architects house (in fact probably the other way around in some cases) so the idea that the architect is the only one capable of obeying code and building safely is a moot point. Regulations brought about with the sole purpose of "elevating" the profession or raising fees is by definition PROTECTIONISM.   Protectionism is illegal. Period.  If one side was creating more of a danger than the other than you may have an argument on why society should take away their ability to compete, but they are not.   

Jun 15, 14 3:45 am  · 
 · 
Thayer-D

datarubicon,

I was following your point until some contradictions appeared that I'd love for you to clarify.

If the law requires all buildings to have an architecture's stamp and approval, this would have the same effect as removing all the quack-doctors and legal laymen who practiced a vulgar version of the art. And in effect, this would raise the economic prosperity of the architectural community.

"Vulgar" is a term I associate with aesthetics or at the very least personal opinion.  There's surely an artistic aspect to both law and medicine, one I refer to as the the "creative" approach of problem solving.  But a lawyer or doctor would never be called vulgar unless they cursed all the time, while a vulgar architect would certainly not be artistically inclined.

All talk of architecture as 'art' is nice, and fluffy stuff is always good and appreciated only when the grit of reality is taken care of. Yes, when a profession and its subject matter has become economically elevated to be on par with its theoretical worth, then can we respectfully engage in speaking of it as an 'art'. But on the whole, it is now impossible to use 'art' and 'aesthetics' as an impetus to increasing the monetary worth of architects, which should be way more than it currently is

So if an architect didn't practice a "vulgar version of the art", they would be renumerated better, yet we can't talk about architecture as an art? (Probably just semantics.) First of all, the public dosen't appreciate the "grit of reality" as you say becasue they expect that done as a matter of course.  I don't walk into buildings wondering if they'll fall down or if the fire exit is well thought out.  The reality I'm most concerned with is the one we percieve with all my senses, so the fluffy stuff tends to matter since that's what we come into contact with.  Yes, it's the spacial function and quality that's pre-eminant, but it's impossible to separate the color, texture, and light from our spacial perception.  At least most users haven't deconstructed their perception the way some architects advocate they should.  A big box store tends to depress me, no matter how much I appreciate the uniform distributions of lumens, while a naturally light surface of well crafted materials will send me to heaven, but that's just me.  As for our "theoretical worth", there's no such thing.  Like any market, we are worth as much as we can get, and even then, every business interaction is subject to negociations (which is also an art form.)

So I don't know who you are waiting to "economically elevate" our profession, but from my experiense, the more I value the artistic elements of my work, the more I get paid.  It's sad our profession still seems to be hung up on the "artistic" value of our work.  I think this whole mind-fuck started with the modernists who got a little too far up their asses and lost touch with how most non-architects experience "grit of reality".   Don't wait for someone to figure it all out for you.  It's been done for centuries, some times faster than others, but you'll have to get behind the eyes of those with whom and for whom you are building first, and "theoretically" use your powers of perception to guide them away from the "vulgar" and to the light, whatever that is in your opinion.

There must come a time when the same praise should be heaped upon the architect's eye for technicality and safety. 

I'm afraid you'll be waiting a very long time becasue building a box just isn't that hard.  Don't get me wrong, it can be incredibly difficult shoud circumstances arrise, but unlike lawyers or doctors, who pull our asses out of a fire in many circumstances, most people don't approach us to do the same.  If all we have to offer is technical competence, then ithere's no doubt why the public dosen't give us the respect you feel we deserve.

I believe architecture is a cornerstone of civilization, much as the other professions are.

If you really believe this, then look at history as a guide.  Is it the technological masterpieces that are most admired and beloved, or is it those buildings that speak to us on a deeper level.  Those that make places more than just a great space.  In my opinion, we are still hung up on all the mental contortions modernist theory saddled us with, the bifurcation of the art and the science.  The true artistry is in the blend of the two, I think.

Jun 15, 14 5:38 am  · 
 · 
Wilma Buttfit

The public thinks architects are egotistical and out of touch, and the solution is to teach the public how to marvel in our awesomeness. What could be wrong with that plan?

(I like architects, I'm an advocate for architecture, even though I sound snarky sometimes.)

Jun 15, 14 8:11 am  · 
 · 

the only solution is, really, through legislation

Let's fix it with legislation! Since that clearly works so well. Architects should be self-regulating, like lawyers and police and Wall Street.

Jun 15, 14 9:36 am  · 
 · 
x-jla

Well said Thayer-D!

Jun 15, 14 3:03 pm  · 
 · 
mightyaa

@there is no there.. mightyaa, Do you agree that an architect who does estimates is kinda unusual?

No, it's not unusual at all.  It's actually part of the standard AIA contract.  The estimates aren't though typically a full breakout like a contractor would do.  Some of us just use the Means books so it's a bit more accurate by breaking it down into sub-categories.  Most projects, it's just a rough $/sf number based on experience.  That may or may not be developed as the project progresses and the design is developed.  That knowledge also guides some of the development like knowing structural system cost so you might work with load bearing cmu instead of steel post & beam.  You will balance budget, quality, design, program, etc. all in house in most firms.  It's rare someone has a blank checkbook, so they look to the architect overseeing the entire design to hold to a budget.  You can't do that if you are clueless... 

Also, think of it this way.  A lot of us work on a percentage of construction cost.  So we often figure out how much the project is going to cost to construct prior to even signing a contract (regardless of owner's budget so you know if they have realistic expectations or not).  Example; A owner wants to add 10,000sf to his office building.  I know that will probably run $220/sf, so I expect to see a $2.2 million budget.  If the Owner tells me he has a $1 mil budget, I move forward in the negotiations very carefully and try to educate them a bit because their expectations are going to be crushed.

Jun 16, 14 2:18 pm  · 
 · 
Wilma Buttfit

mightyaa, I get yaa. I guess it can go a few different ways. Another way is to get the contractor on board early just do the estimating, I guess that is a different project delivery system. but my point remains, that while architects do estimates, they aren't the full breakout and the contractor's estimate is the one that is meaningful. 

Jun 16, 14 4:41 pm  · 
 · 

Their is a world of difference between an estimate and a budget.

Jun 16, 14 5:18 pm  · 
 · 
Wilma Buttfit

Yup, and a quote is something different than an estimate and a budget too. 

Jun 17, 14 7:19 am  · 
 · 
Carrera

Great discussion it’s huge! Somebody hit a nerve!

Simply stated the profession has done a miserable job at educating the public. We are not a necessity. I really expect that the next generation will see only the huge firms left. The work they do is a necessity…large stadiums etc. I see the day when everybody else will be evaporated by developers doing all the work. They are all adding architectural staff and the kids are going…just look at the posts people are fleeing the profession to construction & development. If not they are eyeing it. All that will be left are guys doing houses. I am not being cynical. This is the case in my town, two big firms operating regionally and everybody else is doing houses. I do not see any way to reverse this, its happing right now.

I could go on but I’ve written a bit elsewhere and the reasons are threaded throughout this page. Our architectural schools need to prepare students for this shift. Not everybody is going to Populous.

Jul 17, 14 5:30 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: