This topic got derailed from a previous post: "Is 27K/yr way too low?"
Whenever someone talks about low wages, we inevitably come back to this topic, which I believe is in the hearts of many practicing architects. "Why are wages falling and never seem to recover?" "Architects don't get remunerated well enough"
Obviously, it is an issue because I find that other than talking about the coolest architectural building design, the other most hotly talked about topic is this....
I'm reposting this, so people can refut it, add to it, bash it, offer criticism and offer other suggestions, etc.
My proposal for turning around the industry?
(It will take AT LEAST 15 years to turn it around if we start now...)
Some *possible* (not to be taken as Bible canon) solutions:
1. FIRST and FOREMOST, scrap the whole philosophy, Michael Foucault, Derrida BS we teach in school and focus on teaching the TRADE. Architecture school should be teaching TRADE SKILLS FIRST AND FOREMOST (i.e. technical things)
1b. Philosophy, phenomenology studies and metaphysics can be introduced at a later stage as an "Advanced" PHD research stage.
2. Introduce cross collaboration within Universities with the School of Business (Real Estate department). Final thesis for [under]graduate/ non-PHD level will have to have a Jury that consists of not just architecture professors, but also students/faculty from the Real Estate Department. Grading will be influence also by their input (% to be worked out), hence preparing the students for real world conflict between commercial realities and architectural design integrity. Ultimately, our clients are people like them and their way of thinking and grading a good architecture development is not the same as our view, therefore, they should have a say in what is "good" and what is not.
3. By reducing the theory/philosophy teaching in the curriculum, students have a less inclination to take an idealized vision of the profession and don't make unrealistic expectations when they leave (i.e. expect to change the world with their ideas and willing to work for free/little money to do so). This eliminates the market supply of people who are willing to sell themselves short - and we know that approach most of the time don't work - Students who work for stararchitects, leave after that to run their own practices only to make a loss and run into debt. They thereafter go teach to maintain their creative fulfillment while getting paid a decent salary -while imparting the same education, that got them into this mess in the first pace, to young students.
3.b But reducing the theory curriculum, time in the syllabus can be shifted towards classes in economics (understanding the Supply and Demand curve) and how economic theory affects the market for (tile/lighting) suppliers, competition of services, production possibility frontier (making compromise between quality vs. quantity) etc. Finance is optional although highly recommended. Introduce Marketing course, and application of marketing principles into design. Use automotive industry and consumer goods as case study on how marketing influences design - 5 Ps - Price (choice of materials/construction techniques), People (demographics, target market, social impact of architecture), Product (features and design), Place (cultural implications as well as economic factors - China market vs. European market), Promotion (advertising)
4. All the PHD people doing the research into philosophy and theory can publish their ideas and get recognition. Industry players (i.e. practicing architecture firms) with their "R&D Department" can buy these published works or get them as guest speakers into their corporate training seminar to educate the industry with their latest findings, trends, technology, etc... By separating philosophy studies into PHD level, graduating architects become architects rather than artists and therefore earn a more decent wage and be better Alumni to their University. Architecture schools can therefore afford to beg less from the University Head for funding to sustain their program.
THE OTHER OPTION (which I personally prefer and choose) is to DO AWAY with the entire architecture industry *as a standalone* discipline and integrate it into Real Estate COMPLETELY.
Architects are hired as employees in Real Estate companies, but these companies are run by businessmen. Just like Apple and many automotive companies, the CEO isn't a designer nor an artist. The CEO has his eye on the stock market and shareholders and focus FULL TIME on the running of the business. There is a CFO and the finance department is run by a full-fledged Finance guy as a partner - not a junior accountant who reports to the architect.
Architects are split into 2 career paths. (Taking cue from the advertising industry)
1. Design architects whose career path will take them to become Creative Directors.
2. Project architects who run the project management side of things, whose career path will take them to become Client Directors.
These 2 paths don't cross, the designers can focus on the creative side and spend all their time on design and don't have to juggle budget and all the intricacies of the project management (the project architect does that).
Because the career paths are 2 tracked: Designers can be paid according to the pay scale in their chosen track and not fear competition from their lack of knowledge/experience in project management. So it's an "either/or" system that reward expertise in their given field. Currently, we are all jacks of all trades and master of none. Great designers suck as project management and client management and great managers suck at design. Hence, there is always a political struggle in firms who consists of these 2 different types of architect needed to sustain a practice. (we also need good Designers as well as savvy Architectural Managers)
The Real Estate company as a business will track the cost/quality of each project and use them as case studies for future projects in which they can improve their performance to reduce waste and inefficiencies in the system - Client feedback/meeting of marketing objectives, budget, etc.
Architects can then use that data acquired from the various departments to craft new design strategies to improve design. Architects sole job is to do architecture.
No running of business, no client development, no marketing, no finance... JUST ARCHITECTURE - all that is done by the professionals in their field by the Real Estate Company. Architects just focus on Architecture. We become experts in our field and therefore can afford to charge more for our expertise.
This model is inspired by the automotive industry and some consumer electronic industries. BMW's design is in-house, so is Mercedes... and they are just as competitive as Pininfarina, Giugiaro, etc. But the advantage of these German manufacturers is this: they have free access to marketing data and finance data concerning their products and they are completely integrated into their design.
Adrian Van Hooydonk don't run BMW, he just oversees the design for BMW cars. Artists can do their art and businesses can run their businesses and make money. Just a thought.
It is often said there are too many people in this field. I also realized I am not as concerned with saving the profession as I am learning what I can do differently than the rest of the pack to earn a decent living.
> "It is often said there are too many people in this field."
Too much supply while the demand remains constant.
But the supply of architecture graduates cannot be stopped nor can they be reduced too much as Architecture schools in universities need new influx of students to maintain the program (tuition fees).
> "I also realized I am not as concerned with saving the profession as I am learning what I can do differently than the rest of the pack to earn a decent living."
I find that the profession cannot be saved, but can be influenced to start running business-savvy practices instead of destroying the profession by undercutting each other. And I believe it starts with the new generation of graduating architects. It starts with school.
I do suggest reading up on Marketing as a start. Ask business professionals their opinion and keep an open mind...
kinetic8, while your suggestions may help people practicing architecture professionally, i.e., get them more money, i believe that their sum effect would be to remove most of what made me interested in architecture in the first place.
ideas 1 through 4 would basically accomplish the same as your 'OTHER OPTION'.
architecture is a great way of life (on good days) but a bad business. your suggestions would help architecture become a better business - maybe - but at the cost of everything that makes me love it as a way of life.
right now architecture has the potential to be an art, an approach to life and a way of thinking, a way of creatively addressing community and social needs, AND a consumer product. all of that un-marketable/non-monetizable philosophy and the abstract design exercises help some architects move beyond the given technology and market assumptions and find a different path. the designers at bmw and benz didn't get where they are just through a combination of business and engineering classes - they too had to learn design thinking in a free-ranging studio environment.
there's a place for the more business-like curriculum, sure. i'm glad that my partners have learned the developer, contractor, and business/marketing sides of things so that the rest of us can try to do our best work based on explorations we started in school.
oh man, guys, i'd be OUT. totally with you, steven, on every point.
not only would this remove what made ME interested in this profession, it would create a pretty mediocre, insensitive built environment.
Don't most corporate chains already operate on this model? I have yet to see a Hampton Inn that warms my heart.
And somehow I doubt that the 'architects' working on that stuff are out there making a killing.
I can tell you one thing from experience. Architects who work for the big RE developers get squeezed just as much as 'designers'. Or at least, it comes pretty close.
So yeah, how to fix the profession---relinquish all control and hand it over to the bean counters and the developers. sounds more like signing your own death warrant.
here's a more modest and basic suggestion: Tailor the services/product you are providing to the fee you are getting. Stop promising much more than you can feasibly deliver for what you are being paid. Either that, or ask for more. Even the lowliest businessman out there understands this principle.
ps bmw, apple, et. al are top-of-the-line luxury providers and aren't really representative of how the model works. for every company like this, there are 200 no-name, no-brand outfits who probably have 'designers' and 'creative directors' etc. So yes, there probably would be an ian schrager or andre balazs who would pay for good design, but then there'd be 5000 hampton inns and taco bells and neo-traditional tract housing builders. You really want to place the future of the profession in the hands of those guys?
I have yet to see a Hampton Inn that warms my heart.
God this is the best thing I've read in days! Love it. Great post, elinor.
kinetic you said on the other thread that "clients don't mind if we copy other's work - they encourage it". Modify that statement to say "some" clients. Some other clients care very much that they get a building that is unlike anything else, that makes a statement unique about their corporate mission/philosophic goals and works to boost their brand identity.
So some architects will flourish in the latter area, some in the former.
Kintec 8 there are some good ideas here.
I think in some ways its successful at restructuring what most architects go through anyway, through a painful process.
The end goal seems to be to minimize the role of the convoluted architectural graduate of today that doesnt know whether he is a"designer" or wants to make some money and see his profession awarded accordingly.
SECTION 1:
1. a minor point, Im not convinced about scrapping the WHOLE theoretical side of architecture. I would just try to keep it to an absolute minimum. Sexy imagery is very important, and that is where theory helps out.An undergrad with an overdose in economics will not be able to produce this.
I would just keep the theory to a bare minimum,
a little more theory in the masters
maybe all or mostly theory in Phd.
The benefit of this is that it can creates a tempation for any student
that does want to take an artistic path
2. if all the business and marketing is left to business people, then why would we bother taking all those economics courses in undergrad? This is where your idea of splitting between project management and designer. Are designers only people with M.Arch and Phd degrees?
3.to implement these ideas, ideally you would need a full school of architecture
SECTION 2: the business model
1. I think this is the most interesting idea in your proposal, integrating architecture with the real estate industry. I dont know if it makes a difference, but dont advertising agencies pay little to nothing at first?
2. There are more undergrad degree holders than their are masters or phd holders so if we have more undergrads, does that mean all them go on to take a project management role? since they have the business background?
3. What would a company need more of? creative directors or project managers? the answer to this can be determined by educational backgrounds:
option A. artistic B.Arch --> business minded M.Arch --> Phd in theory or technologies
or
option B. (what you might be proposing)
business minded B.Arch --> somewhat artistic M.Arch --> Phd in theory or technologies
The question is, do architects want to leave all the designing to the young ones? Thats what you get with option A Ive worked in firms that do this. project management is left to the older guys. but ive also worked in places that do the opposite, something like option B.
So in the end, I dont know if any of this would be any different from what we already have, even if it was put into law.
agree on the philosophy bit, since most architects severly mis-interpret the use of the philosophers they are qouting anyway. If you've ever taken philosophy with philosophy majorz you will realize how clueless most architectural theorists are.
theory is an elective not a STUDIO. it informs or historically represents practice, it does not determine it like Modernism did, which was extremely pragmatic and useful for the constuction industry (this would be my limit to Parametricism)
i don't think you want to be part of the Real Estate industry, i think you want to be part of the Construction Industry.
with that said, a little more engineering and a little less Derrida.
someone on the other thread ($27k) said Patents - if you are thinking as an architect you can do this is just as delusional as thinking you can become a Starchitect. Seriously. Everytime someone says they have a Patent idea I ask them how much research they have done, first you are going to spend years tracing the history up to you idea, then you need to argue why it even qualifies as a Patent and then you need to find someone willing to spend money on the Patent, good chance it means nothing to anyone...so you have Patent no one wants. good luck.
to defend kinetic on one point - i didn't take away that he was saying all architects had to become bean counters. what he argued for was that firms should recognize that a division in responsibilities and priorities was in order - don't have the creative head try to run the business side or vice versa. in that manner, each person does what they do best. simultaneously, each should understand what the other does to the benefit of the whole.
now, in most of the large scale successful firms, that happens. you may not like the work hok, gensler, or som do, but they clearly divide responsibilities to conquer. renzo and hdm (as 2 examples) also have a very clear division in their offices - the difference being the kind of vision their leaders exert, the talent they are able to attract to help carry it out, and the way in which they execute the work. and i'd argue that both types of offices above serve their respective client bases well.
as elinor noted - i don't think the problem is the model, it's the combination of things that conspire to help drag down so much work to the lowest common denominator level. you'll find that across all businesses - it's what makes an apple who they are and joe blow pc who they are.
Yikes. While there are a lot of different types of architects that work in various roles, I wouldn't alter the education structure quite like you'd say. It seems like the proposals would basically absorb architects into being a sort of hired dog for real estate developers, and I don't think that's what anyone wants, even real estate developers.
In many instances, a lot of the value that architects can provide involves being an outside, impartial moderator, or expert, or observer. I (and others I know) have worked on many projects where there were a lot of contentious issues between multiple involved parties who wanted different things, and the architect's role as a moderator and a designer was actually helpful for moving things forward. (I think this is probably more common for public projects, but it is equally applicable for private parties - the developer wants one thing, a community receiving the developer's project might want another, and the architect's role is to find a successful path between these forces.)
The architect's role as an outsider expert is also pretty important in combating groupthink and the laziness it can engender. Good consultants will tell you stories of how they'd have to tell clients bad (or expensive) news - sometimes clients will leave when they first hear it, but they will usually be back after implementing some half-baked cutrate solution someone sold them that didn't work. When you work directly for the developer, you risk losing your 'independent' voice and the value that goes with it when making difficult decisions.
Instead of teaching architects how to be developers, I'd teach them things that are important for developers - cost estimation, real estate marketing, finance, 'value engineering' - so that they can have a better knowledge of their client's needs and concerns at a fundamental level. You'd have a stronger knowledge of the design data that are then important to the client, but your independent expert view would allow these concerns to exist as one piece of the puzzle instead of the end-all, be-all of the design. Keep in mind that developers are only one potential market for architects, and that building design is only one possible service.
And, for the love of God, more market analysis and less Derrida. Architecture is a big pyramid of thousands of years of accreted knowledge on buildings - you can't focus entirely on the one golden point of 'theory' at the top.
a large number of graduates from ALL DEGREES think they can head out into the world and change it. it's not exclusive to architecture. I think it has more to do with being young and idealistic.
theory doesn't give you any instructions in how to run a business or get clients - in fact "theory" is pretty much similar across all disciplines - short on instructions, heavy on ideas. the reason theory is taught in all professional degrees is so that you, the student, can head out in the world and attempt to implement and test these theories in practice if you so choose. I'm sure there are a number of successful projective practices that can claim to be beneficiaries of a lot of the theoretical groundwork they received in school.
I could go on, but I've got too much work to do...
The "Hampton Inn warming the heart" theory will never fly. The only programatic requirement here is to provide technical competence on an endlesly repetitive model. Get the customer in and out as comfortably as possible. The major point is for the customer not to notice anything, so she/he can be quickly on their way. The aim is to neither torture nor delight. Here, the overnight experience is a background against a business trip. The furthere distant that background is, the better.
I once fabricated a series of benches and banquttes for a restaurant which were far from comfortable, and when I mentioned this to the owner, who was a personal friend, he replied that the design aim was "turnover," whereby the customers would "eat it and beat it." LC4's would have put him out of business.
The balance the architect provides is to help the client as much as possible without subverting/hijacking her/his program.
your comparison doesn't hold water. in a restaurant, the client stands to gain by getting 3 sets of customers at a table per hour rather than 2. in a hampton inn, you're not going to benefit from turnover, because you're not going to get people in there for a shorter time than one night...(well you can, but that's a whole other business model...)
so the point is to keep the place filled, rather than to get people in and out. it doesn't mater whether they're the same people or different people, but if they're comfortable, they'll a) stay longer or b) come back. it's ludicrous to say that turnover/efficiency is more important than comfort in a hotel...
I don't think JAM was suggesting that turnover is more important than comfort in a hotel. The gist I got was that it's important to understand all the aspects of your program from the point of view of the client and the end user. For a Hampton Inn, the cited example suggested that the hotel was more of a 'background', and is not supposed to be noticed or to distract from the purpose of your visit.
In both the restaurant and the hotel instance, the important design criteria for the client are different from what we might normally expect (e.g., comfort for a chair, prominence and memorability for a hotel). Architects should endeavor to understand the requirements of their clients, even if they are different from what we'd expect.
As an aside, it'd be interesting to see a architects be able to quantify these things (relationship between income and chair comfort, overall satisfaction and lobby design elements, etc.), and sell that expertise (or research proposal) to a client.
I don't think JAM was suggesting that turnover is more important than comfort in a hotel. The gist I got was that it's important to understand all the aspects of your program from the point of view of the client and the end user. For a Hampton Inn, the cited example suggested that the hotel was more of a 'background', and is not supposed to be noticed or to distract from the purpose of your visit.
In both the restaurant and the hotel instance, the important design criteria for the client are different from what we might normally expect (e.g., comfort for a chair, prominence and memorability for a hotel). Architects should endeavor to understand the requirements of their clients, even if they are different from what we'd expect.
As an aside, it'd be interesting to see architects be able to quantify these things (relationship between income and chair comfort, overall satisfaction and lobby design elements, etc.), and sell that expertise (or research proposal) to a client.
oh come on! 'the hotel was more of a 'background', and is not supposed to be noticed or to distract from the purpose of your visit.
am i the only one who finds miles and miles of these things on every highway in this country noticeable?
any architect who's ok with this should reevaluate their commitment...if we start believing that good, thoughtful design is necessarily at odds with good value and not necessary in most applications, then aren't we just finished? there's lots of good, inexpensive design out there (ikea?)
and the average roadside inn would only stand to benefit from a makeover. the client may not think so, but the architect should know better and educate him/her accordingly.
i'm not really disagreeing with you, mix, of course architects should pay attention to clients' needs...just not to the point where it contradicts our own expertise/experience/beliefs. my beliefs don't justfy a defense of cheap corporate construction...which by the way you can download off the internet, complete w/cost estimate and signage specs! no architect required!
At the risk of digressing, the fact that you can go to any town across the country and sleep in the same bed, eat the same hamburger, and buy gas from the same pump is a spectacular monument to our culture. Whether or not it's a good monument is debatable, but it's important for the architect to understand the underlying forces that led to this condition.
I may be somewhat optimistic, but I believe that the more an architect can understand the process that led to 'bad' design, the more that the architect can subvert those processes and create 'good' design using the same requirements. No one really comes into an office and says 'give me a poorly-designed building' - the bad design usually arises from misapplied or ignored design criteria. And yes, client education is an important part of that; being able to instill a sense of 'good' design in a client (or build excitement about it) can only help the architect. When the client and the architect aren't speaking the same language because they have different (non-conflicting) goals, enthusiasm wanes.
Wow, that's awesome. Some architect should go to these people and at least sell them a parametric 'design generator' that lets clients input site conditions and have the prototype buildings that react to them.
It's not perfect, but it's *got* to be an improvement over just downloading some plans somewhere and making carbon copies of the same building across the country.
the hampton inn "prototype" is really just a collection of standard millwork details, FF&E, and other generic "image" requirements - the architect takes this kit of parts and has to adapt it to a site - and can remix things to a certain extent, but the end user's experience is meant to be somewhat the same in all of their buildings... if you go across the country and look at these closely you'll discover that even though they may look identical at first glance, they are all slightly different.
207: Please explain to me the virtue of needing to "educate" our potential audience/clientele so that we can design what we want to design. The sentiment underlying your post smacks of arrogance and is, I think, one of the main reasons our profession is held in reasonably low regard by the people who [must] employ our services.
I'm pretty sure the "public" doesn't feel the need to be "educated" about good design -- rather, I suspect the "public" generally feels that we should already have a decent understanding of their needs/wants and provide solutions accordingly. If it's "good design" then it will be accorded as such.
Did Stephen Jobs need to "educate" the public about the virtues of the iPhone?
Did Stephen Jobs need to "educate" the public about the virtues of the iPhone?
He tried. The original iPhone did not receive picture texts (i always forget which are sms vs rms... anyways) because he felt that every phone should have a good email app. The phone was very successful, but the lack of picture texts was not.
Id like to see the public educated as to why a house plan designed for a specific site is better than picking one out of a book. Here is a hint. You can design a house to be much less expensive to heat and cool if you take into account the site. So even though it costs more upfront eventually it will be paid back.
The room should be comfortable, but you don't go to a Hampton for a vacation or an extended stay; no pools, spas, restaurant (to speak of). The Hampton is not, never will be, was not meant to be, a destination; it's merely there to allow you to get to the destination. A MacDonald's Big Mac is not a destination, either, and I don't hear any Michelin Chef's complaining that they didn't get to design the sauce.... But by all means, go ahead and convince Mickey D's that you can design a better sauce. And while your at it, why don't you go on and talk to Coca-Cola....
If you're a Michelin Chef who has ideas about how to make cheaper factory hamburgers that might even taste better, I'm pretty sure McDonald's would like to hear from you anyhow ;-)
There's always a way to do something better, though. Regardless of Hampton Inn's brand identity or target design, if they are basically copypasting one building to another, there's a better, more efficient way to do that that has the potential to produce a better-designed 'background building'. Architects can show them how (they *do* have an architecture department, but I choose to ignore that for now!), and can design the system that allows Hampton Inn to more effectively convert the design criteria, whatever those are, into actual plans and buildings.
For our hypothetical Hampton Inn client, then, the architectural service isn't actually architecture, but it's definitely within the range of what architects can provide to a client. Additionally, since you're an architect (and not just a code monkey), you have an 'inroad' to work with the company to be able to further develop design criteria for their end goals that can be incorporated into the system. Hypothetically, it's a win for the client and for design overall; I share my hypothetical award with you all.
There are a million things like this that architects can do. We don't have to pound 'good design' into the public's head, or try and force direct architectural services down everyone's throat just yet; but there are things we can do to build business, improve processes and environments, and even gently educate the public on good architecture.
The pubic does need education to appreciate higher forms of art. Do you think your average Joe understands a Picasso? Mozart? Nope. I certainly wouldn't if it weren't for my classes in college (and that's barely scraping the surface).
Clearly to gain appreciation for many things you need to understand them. This takes time (ie marketing efforts and dollars) and patience.
To counter that Jobs comment - architects aren't trying to sell a billion units to an 'average' consumer, they are selling a unique service and a unique take on things, based on their personal talents and skills. MUCH different. You are selling a unique solution, not a generic product.
Education - look at Dwell. That's about the best example for what marketing and education can do. While I don't love most of what they showcase, it does have a common theme and has created a phenomena surrounding modern/contemporary housing. That's a pretty big statement, I think. People are interested in quality design, but they need to be give a few nudges in the right direction.
Design Professions - every other design profession segregates skills based on talent. There are those that are good at programming (and enjoy it) and those that are good at design and those that are good with business.
Architecture, with the exception of the larger (and more efficient) firms still try to do everything.
Furthermore, all other design professions (and professions, for that matter) pay more for a higher level of talent and skills. When everyone is compared based on everything, very few shine.
Automotive examples are good on the corporate level - one man, via one team, creates the vision that will determine the financial success of a firm. This is somewhat similar to how a more design driven small firm would operate.
Graphics/web/video/etc. are good examples of breaking down the tasks based on talent and skills with one creative vision/direction.
In both examples people can focus on specific areas and shine, while still being part of the team and understanding what their contributions mean to the overall.
School - I completely agree that theory is waaaaay overdone. I barely remember my numerous classes, countless readings and bs ramblings. Some is fine, we all need ideas and inspiration, but the levels it has been at for sometime is ludicrous.
However, getting rid of it means that you'll have to fire most of the faculty at the top schools and get some working architects to teach. That won't happen anytime soon. Schools have made a comfy environment for themselves that does not require being successful as an Architect. Why would they want to change?
If we are talking about hotels, why not bring in something like the W or Mandarin? Those would be far more interesting to discuss (and far nicer to experience, or work on for that matter)
I actually can't stand Steve Jobs for that reason, he tries to educate me on how to use technology
I refuse to use apples products.
This is how the average person feels when a highly educated ivy leaguer explains to them their life is a consumerist lie because they shop martha stewart and live in subirbia.
Its not your place architects unless clients ask...quit educating this ned to educate the public, this is exactly how you become irrelevant to the market.
And don't fool yourself, only a handful of architects are capable of providing a design novel enough and beneficial enough worth educating the public on. Most of are not Steve jobs.
I have been out of the profession for almost 2 years! I might need reminding what "good design" means.
I think architects should stop making it all about the architetture. It isn't about the surfaces and the spaces, it is about the people and the activity. Why can't good buildings be big blank backdrops, like old warehouse buildings, boxes with gridded columns and high ceilings? Why does current theory insist architecture is an important thing in and of itself, rather than a basic background that is non-imposing and ready to be adapted for whatever use the inhabitants have in mind.
Funny you all rip on the Hampton Inn, a business model that WORKS despite of it's supposed lack of consideration of what is 'important'!
Someone needs to get all Rem Koolhaas on this Hampton in thing, admit defeat, make cool theory about capitalism, get famous, design ok stuff, build crappy buildings. Observationists shouldn't be hired to create, just saying.
Or how about we become an intergral part of both the Real Estate market and Constrcution? Oh wait we are, but we fight the role THEY give us. We assume as servants of an industry we can dictate the values? Ludicrous.
I've worked for a design-build company, heavy on the build and light on the design. I'm pretty sure you don't want the "role" these kinds of companies prefer to give architects. I would guess and hear much of the same goes for architects in-house with developers. In our case, the owner of the company himself views the architecture department as a necessary evil. In all cases, he would rant and rave about how the architects need to improve design, while cutting down timelines, etc., etc., then immediately turn around and undermine any and every attempt the architects would make to take enough control of the design process to actually improve design. Because it's nearly impossible to achieve without expanding the strict deadline quotas the company has already whittled down ridiculous expectations.
You have to understand that these people choose to run their operations as bare bones as possible. You have to understand that coming from a modern business focus, 99% of the time an owner is only concerned with production and the bottom line. These people did not go to design/ art school or are even aficionados, though a higher proportion often tend to think they are. The handful that do have a clue what good design means still aren't going to sacrifice profits to achieve it. They do not care how pretty or well a building functions as long as you hit their numbers. Good design to them is producing as quickly as possible whatever gets the most money in the door before they finalize the sale, while providing the minimum possible to the client without jeapordizing future prospects or lowering the traffic that comes in their front door. If you can improve these things without, and only without, increasing their costs or schedule, then and only then will it be considered. Then and only then are you approaching "good design". It is extremely difficult in all cases, impossible in all but a few. Thus, all the horrendous design you see today. I rarely allocate the blame for piss poor design on the architect when their hands are so often tied.
My point is, if you are looking to produce something of original, legitimate, unquantitative value, usually it is going to be at the expense of maximum profit. To achieve this, the architect needs to remain as autonomous as possible. You cannot be employed under the corporate banner without succumbing to their corporate ideology, or you won't be working there long. And yes, the autonomous architect's profits will suffer somewhat. It is the tradeoff they make, to be not fully competitive in order to attempt, or at least pay lip service to, the idea of upholding some originality and higher standards.
Sad to say, considering this, I don't see how the architect's ageless economic dilemma has all that much room to improve.
I suppose I like to see an optimistic side to things. From my view, design does matter in the world and it does command more money for something better (we can take examples from any other industry).
If architecture was simply about making the most functional box, without any interest in the spatial experience, a vision or idea, and the Hampton Inn was a model for us all to aspire to, then I don't know a single person that would have ever even considered architecture as a viable career.
I left for a reason, but design was only a small part. But if this is the mentality, then I would be fine to continue to watch it slip down into the abyss.
Again, if we are pointing to hotels, I'd suggest the W, which has made a name for itself for being design focused and upper-mid range.
Not every developer is about killing design. There are just as many that value design as a marketing tool as there are architects that will create something ugly regardless of budget (I do blame the architect, not the developer, you can make something inexpensive decent and something expensive ugly, I see more of the latter).
Lastly, to comment on odn's notion that we are only here for the client's needs, that's ridiculous. We all work for many reasons, I certainly don't do whatever/whenever a client demands, it is a balance of my own vision and their requests, which, ultimately, is why they hire my company. It is also what allows us to create a more successful project.
Yes, almost every client requires some education as to the 'how' 'why' 'when' 'why not' 'why is this good/bad'. If they didn't need anything but a production chump, they could hire their teenage nephew to do it.
I will never presume that a client knows everything and that production is all that is needed. That would grossly undercut my value.
But I guess that's how we come full circle and end up discussing how architecture is dying and how little money can be made.
"an architecture degree should contain rigorous design problems and prepare a student to take the exam upon graduation. "
they should offer a Pro Prac class called "How to live big on an architect's pay." or "How to remain delusional given all the signs."
trace - hiring you is what the client needs. they hire you because you have what they need, plain and simple. you try and give them something they don't need, they don't need you.
so once again, why do architect's feel the need to educate the public as if they were Jehovah witnesses knocking on your door?
"Why can't good buildings be big blank backdrops, like old warehouse buildings, boxes with gridded columns and high ceilings? Why does current theory insist architecture is an important thing in and of itself, rather than a basic background that is non-imposing and ready to be adapted for whatever use the inhabitants have in mind."
You've hit on a key point here.
I think a major problem, not just with architecture in general, in real estate is that 'real estate consumers' want just a little bit more and sometimes a little bit less architecture and Architecture.
Here's a good example that was featured on Archinect recently:
It's great architecture. But it is boring. The structure is pretty fantastical itself. Other than that, it seems to be all pretty standard (especially for a hotel).
Even the interior is boring. It's very well done... but the most exciting thing going on here are the globe chandeliers.
But a hotel is often about relaxation, comfort and people. So minimizing the 'brutality' of the environment and putting focus on the individuals is probably the foremost goal of architecture. And if people are the stars... the building should not compete on that aspect.
This is the kind of architecture people will pay for. It also presents a blank canvas for them to being to build their life on. Some people prefer to have their lives assembled by others.
But I feel that most people will take a piece of architecture and fill it up with their tasteless clutter and paint it tacky colors. They will generally alter, demolish and reconstruct things unless very harsh punishments are put in place (complex leases, contractual rigidity).
That's also been a trend as of late where rental owners are giving their tenants more leeway in 'customizing' their apartments. This is because individuality creates value. I don't think many architecture firms could profitably create 180 custom apartments in a condo and make them affordable.
And this just isn't something regulated to the consumptive end of real estate, highly-successful retail stores use a lack of decoration and minimalist polished finishes to place more emphasis on products rather than using interior architecture to impress.
If your goods aren't interesting, no amount of Architecture will necessarily make you spend money. And for less high end chain stores, they use architecture to reinforce a brand image... and there's no architectural flexibility here.
This notion of 'educating the public' about good design - while desirable, perhaps - seems wildly impractical on any significant scale. For one, I've yet to meet any two architects who can agree on any meaningful explanation of what constitutes good design, much less know how to explain design effectively to the typical layperson. Furthermore, such education requires resources (money and time) not readily available. AIA has not proven an effective vehicle for such education and I don't see the profession either giving the AIA the resources necessary to be successful in these efforts or rallying behind any other organization to get the job done.
The comments above are not meant to be either cynical or negative. Rather, the comments represent my conviction that - as a profession - we're not going to solve these problems through institutional effort. We're going to solve them (or not) one decision, one detail, one building, one client at a time. It's about the bulk of us consistently exercising sound, client-centered judgement each and every day, while striving to produce the best design possible under the circumstances present.
This thread has turned out a lot more civilized than what I expected.
No tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists in sight. Le sigh. Someone has to do it.
Here she goes:
The reason for the decline of architectural profession is inversely proportional with the rise of the automobile. By eliminating geographical constraints, land becomes a commodity. With worthless, disposable land come worthless, disposable buildings. 10% design fee on nothing is still nothing. Race to the bottom climaxed with a colorful explosion, aka current depression. Some of are ready to move on, but powers to be are still lamenting over the unsustainable profit margins.
Land will inevitably become more expensive, forcing a more thoughtful approach to development. As a result, architects will once again be needed to optimize the land use. Our fees and social standing will rise.
Now as a catalyst for that happening faster:
If you vote for me to become the next mayor of Archinect City, I promise to declare an all out war on automobiles. 4-way red lights. Exploding parking meters. Penalties for providing private parking. 500% more potholes. 'Hunt-down-a-car' Fridays. One car per family (lifetime limit). Manual-pump gas stations. Nails everywhere.
Also, I'll sent the homeless back to Cincinnati, and will outlaw the concept of dewpoint.
About 75% of all nonresidential buildings, 70% of multi-family residential are designed by architects and 25% of all residential construction (including new homes, retrofits and refurbs).
In many municipalities in the US, building plans can only be submitted by an Architect (some cities even make engineers get an Architect's stamp). That does not necessarily mean though that the architect really does anything-- clients may bring in their own plans, use other architect's plans, plans from plan books et cetera.
There is a sector (at least in the US) that many architects do not touch-- institutional infrastructure (big, nasty plant things), industrial and warehouses.
And an architect's input on these projects pretty much pales in comparison to the costs you're working with. Basically, $100,000 architecture fee on a $1,500,000,000 nuclear power plant is not ever noticeable (0.00006% fee?!?!).
Even if one were to get a contract to 'slut up' a building like that, the overall function and design is so inflexible that you're more than likely unable to do anything significant structurally or situationally. You, perhaps, at best have a say in cladding, roofing, color, texture and some of the site features.
As the interest in urbanization in the US increases and the interest in bringing back manufacturing is realized, people are going to start living closer and closer to said industrial and institutional activities. We've made strides to make these things a lot safer to be around but no one wants to live across the street from an ugly factory.
The same goes with warehouses, repair shops and other 'gross necessities.' The experience, knowledge and ingenuity architects have will definitely be necessary on making these kinds of property types less offensive.
The Architecture Profession - suggestions and discussions on how to "save" it [Improve it]
This topic got derailed from a previous post: "Is 27K/yr way too low?"
Whenever someone talks about low wages, we inevitably come back to this topic, which I believe is in the hearts of many practicing architects. "Why are wages falling and never seem to recover?" "Architects don't get remunerated well enough"
Obviously, it is an issue because I find that other than talking about the coolest architectural building design, the other most hotly talked about topic is this....
I'm reposting this, so people can refut it, add to it, bash it, offer criticism and offer other suggestions, etc.
My proposal for turning around the industry?
(It will take AT LEAST 15 years to turn it around if we start now...)
Some *possible* (not to be taken as Bible canon) solutions:
1. FIRST and FOREMOST, scrap the whole philosophy, Michael Foucault, Derrida BS we teach in school and focus on teaching the TRADE. Architecture school should be teaching TRADE SKILLS FIRST AND FOREMOST (i.e. technical things)
1b. Philosophy, phenomenology studies and metaphysics can be introduced at a later stage as an "Advanced" PHD research stage.
2. Introduce cross collaboration within Universities with the School of Business (Real Estate department). Final thesis for [under]graduate/ non-PHD level will have to have a Jury that consists of not just architecture professors, but also students/faculty from the Real Estate Department. Grading will be influence also by their input (% to be worked out), hence preparing the students for real world conflict between commercial realities and architectural design integrity. Ultimately, our clients are people like them and their way of thinking and grading a good architecture development is not the same as our view, therefore, they should have a say in what is "good" and what is not.
3. By reducing the theory/philosophy teaching in the curriculum, students have a less inclination to take an idealized vision of the profession and don't make unrealistic expectations when they leave (i.e. expect to change the world with their ideas and willing to work for free/little money to do so). This eliminates the market supply of people who are willing to sell themselves short - and we know that approach most of the time don't work - Students who work for stararchitects, leave after that to run their own practices only to make a loss and run into debt. They thereafter go teach to maintain their creative fulfillment while getting paid a decent salary -while imparting the same education, that got them into this mess in the first pace, to young students.
3.b But reducing the theory curriculum, time in the syllabus can be shifted towards classes in economics (understanding the Supply and Demand curve) and how economic theory affects the market for (tile/lighting) suppliers, competition of services, production possibility frontier (making compromise between quality vs. quantity) etc. Finance is optional although highly recommended. Introduce Marketing course, and application of marketing principles into design. Use automotive industry and consumer goods as case study on how marketing influences design - 5 Ps - Price (choice of materials/construction techniques), People (demographics, target market, social impact of architecture), Product (features and design), Place (cultural implications as well as economic factors - China market vs. European market), Promotion (advertising)
4. All the PHD people doing the research into philosophy and theory can publish their ideas and get recognition. Industry players (i.e. practicing architecture firms) with their "R&D Department" can buy these published works or get them as guest speakers into their corporate training seminar to educate the industry with their latest findings, trends, technology, etc... By separating philosophy studies into PHD level, graduating architects become architects rather than artists and therefore earn a more decent wage and be better Alumni to their University. Architecture schools can therefore afford to beg less from the University Head for funding to sustain their program.
THE OTHER OPTION (which I personally prefer and choose) is to DO AWAY with the entire architecture industry *as a standalone* discipline and integrate it into Real Estate COMPLETELY.
Architects are hired as employees in Real Estate companies, but these companies are run by businessmen. Just like Apple and many automotive companies, the CEO isn't a designer nor an artist. The CEO has his eye on the stock market and shareholders and focus FULL TIME on the running of the business. There is a CFO and the finance department is run by a full-fledged Finance guy as a partner - not a junior accountant who reports to the architect.
Architects are split into 2 career paths. (Taking cue from the advertising industry)
1. Design architects whose career path will take them to become Creative Directors.
2. Project architects who run the project management side of things, whose career path will take them to become Client Directors.
These 2 paths don't cross, the designers can focus on the creative side and spend all their time on design and don't have to juggle budget and all the intricacies of the project management (the project architect does that).
Because the career paths are 2 tracked: Designers can be paid according to the pay scale in their chosen track and not fear competition from their lack of knowledge/experience in project management. So it's an "either/or" system that reward expertise in their given field. Currently, we are all jacks of all trades and master of none. Great designers suck as project management and client management and great managers suck at design. Hence, there is always a political struggle in firms who consists of these 2 different types of architect needed to sustain a practice. (we also need good Designers as well as savvy Architectural Managers)
The Real Estate company as a business will track the cost/quality of each project and use them as case studies for future projects in which they can improve their performance to reduce waste and inefficiencies in the system - Client feedback/meeting of marketing objectives, budget, etc.
Architects can then use that data acquired from the various departments to craft new design strategies to improve design. Architects sole job is to do architecture.
No running of business, no client development, no marketing, no finance... JUST ARCHITECTURE - all that is done by the professionals in their field by the Real Estate Company. Architects just focus on Architecture. We become experts in our field and therefore can afford to charge more for our expertise.
This model is inspired by the automotive industry and some consumer electronic industries. BMW's design is in-house, so is Mercedes... and they are just as competitive as Pininfarina, Giugiaro, etc. But the advantage of these German manufacturers is this: they have free access to marketing data and finance data concerning their products and they are completely integrated into their design.
Adrian Van Hooydonk don't run BMW, he just oversees the design for BMW cars. Artists can do their art and businesses can run their businesses and make money. Just a thought.
Architecture is the only Art major with frat bros.
It is often said there are too many people in this field. I also realized I am not as concerned with saving the profession as I am learning what I can do differently than the rest of the pack to earn a decent living.
> "It is often said there are too many people in this field."
Too much supply while the demand remains constant.
But the supply of architecture graduates cannot be stopped nor can they be reduced too much as Architecture schools in universities need new influx of students to maintain the program (tuition fees).
> "I also realized I am not as concerned with saving the profession as I am learning what I can do differently than the rest of the pack to earn a decent living."
I find that the profession cannot be saved, but can be influenced to start running business-savvy practices instead of destroying the profession by undercutting each other. And I believe it starts with the new generation of graduating architects. It starts with school.
I do suggest reading up on Marketing as a start. Ask business professionals their opinion and keep an open mind...
kinetic8, while your suggestions may help people practicing architecture professionally, i.e., get them more money, i believe that their sum effect would be to remove most of what made me interested in architecture in the first place.
ideas 1 through 4 would basically accomplish the same as your 'OTHER OPTION'.
architecture is a great way of life (on good days) but a bad business. your suggestions would help architecture become a better business - maybe - but at the cost of everything that makes me love it as a way of life.
right now architecture has the potential to be an art, an approach to life and a way of thinking, a way of creatively addressing community and social needs, AND a consumer product. all of that un-marketable/non-monetizable philosophy and the abstract design exercises help some architects move beyond the given technology and market assumptions and find a different path. the designers at bmw and benz didn't get where they are just through a combination of business and engineering classes - they too had to learn design thinking in a free-ranging studio environment.
there's a place for the more business-like curriculum, sure. i'm glad that my partners have learned the developer, contractor, and business/marketing sides of things so that the rest of us can try to do our best work based on explorations we started in school.
oh man, guys, i'd be OUT. totally with you, steven, on every point.
not only would this remove what made ME interested in this profession, it would create a pretty mediocre, insensitive built environment.
Don't most corporate chains already operate on this model? I have yet to see a Hampton Inn that warms my heart.
And somehow I doubt that the 'architects' working on that stuff are out there making a killing.
I can tell you one thing from experience. Architects who work for the big RE developers get squeezed just as much as 'designers'. Or at least, it comes pretty close.
So yeah, how to fix the profession---relinquish all control and hand it over to the bean counters and the developers. sounds more like signing your own death warrant.
here's a more modest and basic suggestion: Tailor the services/product you are providing to the fee you are getting. Stop promising much more than you can feasibly deliver for what you are being paid. Either that, or ask for more. Even the lowliest businessman out there understands this principle.
ps bmw, apple, et. al are top-of-the-line luxury providers and aren't really representative of how the model works. for every company like this, there are 200 no-name, no-brand outfits who probably have 'designers' and 'creative directors' etc. So yes, there probably would be an ian schrager or andre balazs who would pay for good design, but then there'd be 5000 hampton inns and taco bells and neo-traditional tract housing builders. You really want to place the future of the profession in the hands of those guys?
God this is the best thing I've read in days! Love it. Great post, elinor.
kinetic you said on the other thread that "clients don't mind if we copy other's work - they encourage it". Modify that statement to say "some" clients. Some other clients care very much that they get a building that is unlike anything else, that makes a statement unique about their corporate mission/philosophic goals and works to boost their brand identity.
So some architects will flourish in the latter area, some in the former.
Kintec 8 there are some good ideas here.
I think in some ways its successful at restructuring what most architects go through anyway, through a painful process.
The end goal seems to be to minimize the role of the convoluted architectural graduate of today that doesnt know whether he is a"designer" or wants to make some money and see his profession awarded accordingly.
SECTION 1:
1. a minor point, Im not convinced about scrapping the WHOLE theoretical side of architecture. I would just try to keep it to an absolute minimum. Sexy imagery is very important, and that is where theory helps out.An undergrad with an overdose in economics will not be able to produce this.
I would just keep the theory to a bare minimum,
a little more theory in the masters
maybe all or mostly theory in Phd.
The benefit of this is that it can creates a tempation for any student
that does want to take an artistic path
2. if all the business and marketing is left to business people, then why would we bother taking all those economics courses in undergrad? This is where your idea of splitting between project management and designer. Are designers only people with M.Arch and Phd degrees?
3.to implement these ideas, ideally you would need a full school of architecture
SECTION 2: the business model
1. I think this is the most interesting idea in your proposal, integrating architecture with the real estate industry. I dont know if it makes a difference, but dont advertising agencies pay little to nothing at first?
2. There are more undergrad degree holders than their are masters or phd holders so if we have more undergrads, does that mean all them go on to take a project management role? since they have the business background?
3. What would a company need more of? creative directors or project managers? the answer to this can be determined by educational backgrounds:
option A. artistic B.Arch --> business minded M.Arch --> Phd in theory or technologies
or
option B. (what you might be proposing)
business minded B.Arch --> somewhat artistic M.Arch --> Phd in theory or technologies
The question is, do architects want to leave all the designing to the young ones? Thats what you get with option A Ive worked in firms that do this. project management is left to the older guys. but ive also worked in places that do the opposite, something like option B.
So in the end, I dont know if any of this would be any different from what we already have, even if it was put into law.
agree on the philosophy bit, since most architects severly mis-interpret the use of the philosophers they are qouting anyway. If you've ever taken philosophy with philosophy majorz you will realize how clueless most architectural theorists are.
theory is an elective not a STUDIO. it informs or historically represents practice, it does not determine it like Modernism did, which was extremely pragmatic and useful for the constuction industry (this would be my limit to Parametricism)
i don't think you want to be part of the Real Estate industry, i think you want to be part of the Construction Industry.
with that said, a little more engineering and a little less Derrida.
someone on the other thread ($27k) said Patents - if you are thinking as an architect you can do this is just as delusional as thinking you can become a Starchitect. Seriously. Everytime someone says they have a Patent idea I ask them how much research they have done, first you are going to spend years tracing the history up to you idea, then you need to argue why it even qualifies as a Patent and then you need to find someone willing to spend money on the Patent, good chance it means nothing to anyone...so you have Patent no one wants. good luck.
i've been to many waffle houses that warmed my heart, but maybe that was just heart burn.
Create something that other people will want. Then they will want to pay you for what you have done.
to defend kinetic on one point - i didn't take away that he was saying all architects had to become bean counters. what he argued for was that firms should recognize that a division in responsibilities and priorities was in order - don't have the creative head try to run the business side or vice versa. in that manner, each person does what they do best. simultaneously, each should understand what the other does to the benefit of the whole.
now, in most of the large scale successful firms, that happens. you may not like the work hok, gensler, or som do, but they clearly divide responsibilities to conquer. renzo and hdm (as 2 examples) also have a very clear division in their offices - the difference being the kind of vision their leaders exert, the talent they are able to attract to help carry it out, and the way in which they execute the work. and i'd argue that both types of offices above serve their respective client bases well.
as elinor noted - i don't think the problem is the model, it's the combination of things that conspire to help drag down so much work to the lowest common denominator level. you'll find that across all businesses - it's what makes an apple who they are and joe blow pc who they are.
This is shaping up to be an interesting thread and, in many ways, quite similar to a good one here back in early 2009: Year Zero - Alternative Business Models for Architecture
Yikes. While there are a lot of different types of architects that work in various roles, I wouldn't alter the education structure quite like you'd say. It seems like the proposals would basically absorb architects into being a sort of hired dog for real estate developers, and I don't think that's what anyone wants, even real estate developers.
In many instances, a lot of the value that architects can provide involves being an outside, impartial moderator, or expert, or observer. I (and others I know) have worked on many projects where there were a lot of contentious issues between multiple involved parties who wanted different things, and the architect's role as a moderator and a designer was actually helpful for moving things forward. (I think this is probably more common for public projects, but it is equally applicable for private parties - the developer wants one thing, a community receiving the developer's project might want another, and the architect's role is to find a successful path between these forces.)
The architect's role as an outsider expert is also pretty important in combating groupthink and the laziness it can engender. Good consultants will tell you stories of how they'd have to tell clients bad (or expensive) news - sometimes clients will leave when they first hear it, but they will usually be back after implementing some half-baked cutrate solution someone sold them that didn't work. When you work directly for the developer, you risk losing your 'independent' voice and the value that goes with it when making difficult decisions.
Instead of teaching architects how to be developers, I'd teach them things that are important for developers - cost estimation, real estate marketing, finance, 'value engineering' - so that they can have a better knowledge of their client's needs and concerns at a fundamental level. You'd have a stronger knowledge of the design data that are then important to the client, but your independent expert view would allow these concerns to exist as one piece of the puzzle instead of the end-all, be-all of the design. Keep in mind that developers are only one potential market for architects, and that building design is only one possible service.
And, for the love of God, more market analysis and less Derrida. Architecture is a big pyramid of thousands of years of accreted knowledge on buildings - you can't focus entirely on the one golden point of 'theory' at the top.
a large number of graduates from ALL DEGREES think they can head out into the world and change it. it's not exclusive to architecture. I think it has more to do with being young and idealistic.
theory doesn't give you any instructions in how to run a business or get clients - in fact "theory" is pretty much similar across all disciplines - short on instructions, heavy on ideas. the reason theory is taught in all professional degrees is so that you, the student, can head out in the world and attempt to implement and test these theories in practice if you so choose. I'm sure there are a number of successful projective practices that can claim to be beneficiaries of a lot of the theoretical groundwork they received in school.
I could go on, but I've got too much work to do...
The "Hampton Inn warming the heart" theory will never fly. The only programatic requirement here is to provide technical competence on an endlesly repetitive model. Get the customer in and out as comfortably as possible. The major point is for the customer not to notice anything, so she/he can be quickly on their way. The aim is to neither torture nor delight. Here, the overnight experience is a background against a business trip. The furthere distant that background is, the better.
I once fabricated a series of benches and banquttes for a restaurant which were far from comfortable, and when I mentioned this to the owner, who was a personal friend, he replied that the design aim was "turnover," whereby the customers would "eat it and beat it." LC4's would have put him out of business.
The balance the architect provides is to help the client as much as possible without subverting/hijacking her/his program.
"First, do no harm."
your comparison doesn't hold water. in a restaurant, the client stands to gain by getting 3 sets of customers at a table per hour rather than 2. in a hampton inn, you're not going to benefit from turnover, because you're not going to get people in there for a shorter time than one night...(well you can, but that's a whole other business model...)
so the point is to keep the place filled, rather than to get people in and out. it doesn't mater whether they're the same people or different people, but if they're comfortable, they'll a) stay longer or b) come back. it's ludicrous to say that turnover/efficiency is more important than comfort in a hotel...
I don't think JAM was suggesting that turnover is more important than comfort in a hotel. The gist I got was that it's important to understand all the aspects of your program from the point of view of the client and the end user. For a Hampton Inn, the cited example suggested that the hotel was more of a 'background', and is not supposed to be noticed or to distract from the purpose of your visit.
In both the restaurant and the hotel instance, the important design criteria for the client are different from what we might normally expect (e.g., comfort for a chair, prominence and memorability for a hotel). Architects should endeavor to understand the requirements of their clients, even if they are different from what we'd expect.
As an aside, it'd be interesting to see a architects be able to quantify these things (relationship between income and chair comfort, overall satisfaction and lobby design elements, etc.), and sell that expertise (or research proposal) to a client.
I don't think JAM was suggesting that turnover is more important than comfort in a hotel. The gist I got was that it's important to understand all the aspects of your program from the point of view of the client and the end user. For a Hampton Inn, the cited example suggested that the hotel was more of a 'background', and is not supposed to be noticed or to distract from the purpose of your visit.
In both the restaurant and the hotel instance, the important design criteria for the client are different from what we might normally expect (e.g., comfort for a chair, prominence and memorability for a hotel). Architects should endeavor to understand the requirements of their clients, even if they are different from what we'd expect.
As an aside, it'd be interesting to see architects be able to quantify these things (relationship between income and chair comfort, overall satisfaction and lobby design elements, etc.), and sell that expertise (or research proposal) to a client.
Whoops, apologies for the double post! I'm sure I've made it better by apologizing in a third post ;)
oh come on! 'the hotel was more of a 'background', and is not supposed to be noticed or to distract from the purpose of your visit.
am i the only one who finds miles and miles of these things on every highway in this country noticeable?
any architect who's ok with this should reevaluate their commitment...if we start believing that good, thoughtful design is necessarily at odds with good value and not necessary in most applications, then aren't we just finished? there's lots of good, inexpensive design out there (ikea?)
and the average roadside inn would only stand to benefit from a makeover. the client may not think so, but the architect should know better and educate him/her accordingly.
i'm not really disagreeing with you, mix, of course architects should pay attention to clients' needs...just not to the point where it contradicts our own expertise/experience/beliefs. my beliefs don't justfy a defense of cheap corporate construction...which by the way you can download off the internet, complete w/cost estimate and signage specs! no architect required!
http://www.hamptondevelopment.com/Scripts/DC.asp?http://www.hamptondevelopment.com/HHC/ArchDesign/HI_ArchDesign_Main.asp
i'll shut up now and let everyone return to the main discussion............
At the risk of digressing, the fact that you can go to any town across the country and sleep in the same bed, eat the same hamburger, and buy gas from the same pump is a spectacular monument to our culture. Whether or not it's a good monument is debatable, but it's important for the architect to understand the underlying forces that led to this condition.
I may be somewhat optimistic, but I believe that the more an architect can understand the process that led to 'bad' design, the more that the architect can subvert those processes and create 'good' design using the same requirements. No one really comes into an office and says 'give me a poorly-designed building' - the bad design usually arises from misapplied or ignored design criteria. And yes, client education is an important part of that; being able to instill a sense of 'good' design in a client (or build excitement about it) can only help the architect. When the client and the architect aren't speaking the same language because they have different (non-conflicting) goals, enthusiasm wanes.
Wow, that's awesome. Some architect should go to these people and at least sell them a parametric 'design generator' that lets clients input site conditions and have the prototype buildings that react to them.
It's not perfect, but it's *got* to be an improvement over just downloading some plans somewhere and making carbon copies of the same building across the country.
FIRST and FOREMOST should be education of the architecture buying public of the virtues/value of good design.
<i>FIRST and FOREMOST should be education of the architecture buying public of the virtues/value of good design.<i/>
Unfortunately we live in a throw away society. Getting the lowest possible price seems to drive the majority of the people.
the hampton inn "prototype" is really just a collection of standard millwork details, FF&E, and other generic "image" requirements - the architect takes this kit of parts and has to adapt it to a site - and can remix things to a certain extent, but the end user's experience is meant to be somewhat the same in all of their buildings... if you go across the country and look at these closely you'll discover that even though they may look identical at first glance, they are all slightly different.
hampton inn parametric design generator (incorporating good design, of course)...we develop it and sell it back to them.
and that's how we save the architecture profession.
i am SO in.
:)
207: Please explain to me the virtue of needing to "educate" our potential audience/clientele so that we can design what we want to design. The sentiment underlying your post smacks of arrogance and is, I think, one of the main reasons our profession is held in reasonably low regard by the people who [must] employ our services.
I'm pretty sure the "public" doesn't feel the need to be "educated" about good design -- rather, I suspect the "public" generally feels that we should already have a decent understanding of their needs/wants and provide solutions accordingly. If it's "good design" then it will be accorded as such.
Did Stephen Jobs need to "educate" the public about the virtues of the iPhone?
and I don't really see how this is different than working in any traditional style...
He tried. The original iPhone did not receive picture texts (i always forget which are sms vs rms... anyways) because he felt that every phone should have a good email app. The phone was very successful, but the lack of picture texts was not.
Id like to see the public educated as to why a house plan designed for a specific site is better than picking one out of a book. Here is a hint. You can design a house to be much less expensive to heat and cool if you take into account the site. So even though it costs more upfront eventually it will be paid back.
he educates the public through his product...i.e. this, here, is what you need.
it's ungainly for architects to do that, so we have to do it in other ways.
The room should be comfortable, but you don't go to a Hampton for a vacation or an extended stay; no pools, spas, restaurant (to speak of). The Hampton is not, never will be, was not meant to be, a destination; it's merely there to allow you to get to the destination. A MacDonald's Big Mac is not a destination, either, and I don't hear any Michelin Chef's complaining that they didn't get to design the sauce.... But by all means, go ahead and convince Mickey D's that you can design a better sauce. And while your at it, why don't you go on and talk to Coca-Cola....
If you're a Michelin Chef who has ideas about how to make cheaper factory hamburgers that might even taste better, I'm pretty sure McDonald's would like to hear from you anyhow ;-)
There's always a way to do something better, though. Regardless of Hampton Inn's brand identity or target design, if they are basically copypasting one building to another, there's a better, more efficient way to do that that has the potential to produce a better-designed 'background building'. Architects can show them how (they *do* have an architecture department, but I choose to ignore that for now!), and can design the system that allows Hampton Inn to more effectively convert the design criteria, whatever those are, into actual plans and buildings.
For our hypothetical Hampton Inn client, then, the architectural service isn't actually architecture, but it's definitely within the range of what architects can provide to a client. Additionally, since you're an architect (and not just a code monkey), you have an 'inroad' to work with the company to be able to further develop design criteria for their end goals that can be incorporated into the system. Hypothetically, it's a win for the client and for design overall; I share my hypothetical award with you all.
There are a million things like this that architects can do. We don't have to pound 'good design' into the public's head, or try and force direct architectural services down everyone's throat just yet; but there are things we can do to build business, improve processes and environments, and even gently educate the public on good architecture.
The pubic does need education to appreciate higher forms of art. Do you think your average Joe understands a Picasso? Mozart? Nope. I certainly wouldn't if it weren't for my classes in college (and that's barely scraping the surface).
Clearly to gain appreciation for many things you need to understand them. This takes time (ie marketing efforts and dollars) and patience.
To counter that Jobs comment - architects aren't trying to sell a billion units to an 'average' consumer, they are selling a unique service and a unique take on things, based on their personal talents and skills. MUCH different. You are selling a unique solution, not a generic product.
Education - look at Dwell. That's about the best example for what marketing and education can do. While I don't love most of what they showcase, it does have a common theme and has created a phenomena surrounding modern/contemporary housing. That's a pretty big statement, I think. People are interested in quality design, but they need to be give a few nudges in the right direction.
Design Professions - every other design profession segregates skills based on talent. There are those that are good at programming (and enjoy it) and those that are good at design and those that are good with business.
Architecture, with the exception of the larger (and more efficient) firms still try to do everything.
Furthermore, all other design professions (and professions, for that matter) pay more for a higher level of talent and skills. When everyone is compared based on everything, very few shine.
Automotive examples are good on the corporate level - one man, via one team, creates the vision that will determine the financial success of a firm. This is somewhat similar to how a more design driven small firm would operate.
Graphics/web/video/etc. are good examples of breaking down the tasks based on talent and skills with one creative vision/direction.
In both examples people can focus on specific areas and shine, while still being part of the team and understanding what their contributions mean to the overall.
School - I completely agree that theory is waaaaay overdone. I barely remember my numerous classes, countless readings and bs ramblings. Some is fine, we all need ideas and inspiration, but the levels it has been at for sometime is ludicrous.
However, getting rid of it means that you'll have to fire most of the faculty at the top schools and get some working architects to teach. That won't happen anytime soon. Schools have made a comfy environment for themselves that does not require being successful as an Architect. Why would they want to change?
If we are talking about hotels, why not bring in something like the W or Mandarin? Those would be far more interesting to discuss (and far nicer to experience, or work on for that matter)
I actually can't stand Steve Jobs for that reason, he tries to educate me on how to use technology
I refuse to use apples products.
This is how the average person feels when a highly educated ivy leaguer explains to them their life is a consumerist lie because they shop martha stewart and live in subirbia.
Its not your place architects unless clients ask...quit educating this ned to educate the public, this is exactly how you become irrelevant to the market.
And don't fool yourself, only a handful of architects are capable of providing a design novel enough and beneficial enough worth educating the public on. Most of are not Steve jobs.
I have been out of the profession for almost 2 years! I might need reminding what "good design" means.
I think architects should stop making it all about the architetture. It isn't about the surfaces and the spaces, it is about the people and the activity. Why can't good buildings be big blank backdrops, like old warehouse buildings, boxes with gridded columns and high ceilings? Why does current theory insist architecture is an important thing in and of itself, rather than a basic background that is non-imposing and ready to be adapted for whatever use the inhabitants have in mind.
Funny you all rip on the Hampton Inn, a business model that WORKS despite of it's supposed lack of consideration of what is 'important'!
Strawbeary you've seen the light.
Someone needs to get all Rem Koolhaas on this Hampton in thing, admit defeat, make cool theory about capitalism, get famous, design ok stuff, build crappy buildings. Observationists shouldn't be hired to create, just saying.
Or how about we become an intergral part of both the Real Estate market and Constrcution? Oh wait we are, but we fight the role THEY give us. We assume as servants of an industry we can dictate the values? Ludicrous.
an architecture degree should contain rigorous design problems and prepare a student to take the exam upon graduation.
I've worked for a design-build company, heavy on the build and light on the design. I'm pretty sure you don't want the "role" these kinds of companies prefer to give architects. I would guess and hear much of the same goes for architects in-house with developers. In our case, the owner of the company himself views the architecture department as a necessary evil. In all cases, he would rant and rave about how the architects need to improve design, while cutting down timelines, etc., etc., then immediately turn around and undermine any and every attempt the architects would make to take enough control of the design process to actually improve design. Because it's nearly impossible to achieve without expanding the strict deadline quotas the company has already whittled down ridiculous expectations.
You have to understand that these people choose to run their operations as bare bones as possible. You have to understand that coming from a modern business focus, 99% of the time an owner is only concerned with production and the bottom line. These people did not go to design/ art school or are even aficionados, though a higher proportion often tend to think they are. The handful that do have a clue what good design means still aren't going to sacrifice profits to achieve it. They do not care how pretty or well a building functions as long as you hit their numbers. Good design to them is producing as quickly as possible whatever gets the most money in the door before they finalize the sale, while providing the minimum possible to the client without jeapordizing future prospects or lowering the traffic that comes in their front door. If you can improve these things without, and only without, increasing their costs or schedule, then and only then will it be considered. Then and only then are you approaching "good design". It is extremely difficult in all cases, impossible in all but a few. Thus, all the horrendous design you see today. I rarely allocate the blame for piss poor design on the architect when their hands are so often tied.
My point is, if you are looking to produce something of original, legitimate, unquantitative value, usually it is going to be at the expense of maximum profit. To achieve this, the architect needs to remain as autonomous as possible. You cannot be employed under the corporate banner without succumbing to their corporate ideology, or you won't be working there long. And yes, the autonomous architect's profits will suffer somewhat. It is the tradeoff they make, to be not fully competitive in order to attempt, or at least pay lip service to, the idea of upholding some originality and higher standards.
Sad to say, considering this, I don't see how the architect's ageless economic dilemma has all that much room to improve.
I suppose I like to see an optimistic side to things. From my view, design does matter in the world and it does command more money for something better (we can take examples from any other industry).
If architecture was simply about making the most functional box, without any interest in the spatial experience, a vision or idea, and the Hampton Inn was a model for us all to aspire to, then I don't know a single person that would have ever even considered architecture as a viable career.
I left for a reason, but design was only a small part. But if this is the mentality, then I would be fine to continue to watch it slip down into the abyss.
Again, if we are pointing to hotels, I'd suggest the W, which has made a name for itself for being design focused and upper-mid range.
Not every developer is about killing design. There are just as many that value design as a marketing tool as there are architects that will create something ugly regardless of budget (I do blame the architect, not the developer, you can make something inexpensive decent and something expensive ugly, I see more of the latter).
Lastly, to comment on odn's notion that we are only here for the client's needs, that's ridiculous. We all work for many reasons, I certainly don't do whatever/whenever a client demands, it is a balance of my own vision and their requests, which, ultimately, is why they hire my company. It is also what allows us to create a more successful project.
Yes, almost every client requires some education as to the 'how' 'why' 'when' 'why not' 'why is this good/bad'. If they didn't need anything but a production chump, they could hire their teenage nephew to do it.
I will never presume that a client knows everything and that production is all that is needed. That would grossly undercut my value.
But I guess that's how we come full circle and end up discussing how architecture is dying and how little money can be made.
oh vado stop making so much damn sense -
"an architecture degree should contain rigorous design problems and prepare a student to take the exam upon graduation. "
they should offer a Pro Prac class called "How to live big on an architect's pay." or "How to remain delusional given all the signs."
trace - hiring you is what the client needs. they hire you because you have what they need, plain and simple. you try and give them something they don't need, they don't need you.
so once again, why do architect's feel the need to educate the public as if they were Jehovah witnesses knocking on your door?
"Why can't good buildings be big blank backdrops, like old warehouse buildings, boxes with gridded columns and high ceilings? Why does current theory insist architecture is an important thing in and of itself, rather than a basic background that is non-imposing and ready to be adapted for whatever use the inhabitants have in mind."
You've hit on a key point here.
I think a major problem, not just with architecture in general, in real estate is that 'real estate consumers' want just a little bit more and sometimes a little bit less architecture and Architecture.
Here's a good example that was featured on Archinect recently:
It's great architecture. But it is boring. The structure is pretty fantastical itself. Other than that, it seems to be all pretty standard (especially for a hotel).
Very big picture: http://www.axishoteisegolfe.com/highRes/viana_img_0148.jpg
Even the interior is boring. It's very well done... but the most exciting thing going on here are the globe chandeliers.
But a hotel is often about relaxation, comfort and people. So minimizing the 'brutality' of the environment and putting focus on the individuals is probably the foremost goal of architecture. And if people are the stars... the building should not compete on that aspect.
This is the kind of architecture people will pay for. It also presents a blank canvas for them to being to build their life on. Some people prefer to have their lives assembled by others.
But I feel that most people will take a piece of architecture and fill it up with their tasteless clutter and paint it tacky colors. They will generally alter, demolish and reconstruct things unless very harsh punishments are put in place (complex leases, contractual rigidity).
That's also been a trend as of late where rental owners are giving their tenants more leeway in 'customizing' their apartments. This is because individuality creates value. I don't think many architecture firms could profitably create 180 custom apartments in a condo and make them affordable.
And this just isn't something regulated to the consumptive end of real estate, highly-successful retail stores use a lack of decoration and minimalist polished finishes to place more emphasis on products rather than using interior architecture to impress.
If your goods aren't interesting, no amount of Architecture will necessarily make you spend money. And for less high end chain stores, they use architecture to reinforce a brand image... and there's no architectural flexibility here.
This notion of 'educating the public' about good design - while desirable, perhaps - seems wildly impractical on any significant scale. For one, I've yet to meet any two architects who can agree on any meaningful explanation of what constitutes good design, much less know how to explain design effectively to the typical layperson. Furthermore, such education requires resources (money and time) not readily available. AIA has not proven an effective vehicle for such education and I don't see the profession either giving the AIA the resources necessary to be successful in these efforts or rallying behind any other organization to get the job done.
The comments above are not meant to be either cynical or negative. Rather, the comments represent my conviction that - as a profession - we're not going to solve these problems through institutional effort. We're going to solve them (or not) one decision, one detail, one building, one client at a time. It's about the bulk of us consistently exercising sound, client-centered judgement each and every day, while striving to produce the best design possible under the circumstances present.
Just my $0.02
Only two to five percent of buildings are designed by architects. I've always wondered if architects can contribute to a broader range of buildings.
This thread has turned out a lot more civilized than what I expected.
No tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists in sight. Le sigh. Someone has to do it.
Here she goes:
The reason for the decline of architectural profession is inversely proportional with the rise of the automobile. By eliminating geographical constraints, land becomes a commodity. With worthless, disposable land come worthless, disposable buildings. 10% design fee on nothing is still nothing. Race to the bottom climaxed with a colorful explosion, aka current depression. Some of are ready to move on, but powers to be are still lamenting over the unsustainable profit margins.
Land will inevitably become more expensive, forcing a more thoughtful approach to development. As a result, architects will once again be needed to optimize the land use. Our fees and social standing will rise.
Now as a catalyst for that happening faster:
If you vote for me to become the next mayor of Archinect City, I promise to declare an all out war on automobiles. 4-way red lights. Exploding parking meters. Penalties for providing private parking. 500% more potholes. 'Hunt-down-a-car' Fridays. One car per family (lifetime limit). Manual-pump gas stations. Nails everywhere.
Also, I'll sent the homeless back to Cincinnati, and will outlaw the concept of dewpoint.
You're welcome.
Not true.
That figure is only for new single-family homes.
About 75% of all nonresidential buildings, 70% of multi-family residential are designed by architects and 25% of all residential construction (including new homes, retrofits and refurbs).
In many municipalities in the US, building plans can only be submitted by an Architect (some cities even make engineers get an Architect's stamp). That does not necessarily mean though that the architect really does anything-- clients may bring in their own plans, use other architect's plans, plans from plan books et cetera.
There is a sector (at least in the US) that many architects do not touch-- institutional infrastructure (big, nasty plant things), industrial and warehouses.
And an architect's input on these projects pretty much pales in comparison to the costs you're working with. Basically, $100,000 architecture fee on a $1,500,000,000 nuclear power plant is not ever noticeable (0.00006% fee?!?!).
Even if one were to get a contract to 'slut up' a building like that, the overall function and design is so inflexible that you're more than likely unable to do anything significant structurally or situationally. You, perhaps, at best have a say in cladding, roofing, color, texture and some of the site features.
As the interest in urbanization in the US increases and the interest in bringing back manufacturing is realized, people are going to start living closer and closer to said industrial and institutional activities. We've made strides to make these things a lot safer to be around but no one wants to live across the street from an ugly factory.
The same goes with warehouses, repair shops and other 'gross necessities.' The experience, knowledge and ingenuity architects have will definitely be necessary on making these kinds of property types less offensive.
Factories are ugly?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cprimm_manly427/3852696974/sizes/l/in/set-72157622129875708
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Chestnut_Hill_Water_Works_high-service_pumping_station.jpg
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.