Except both of those buildings were built in 19th century and in urban areas. That more or less proves my point that factories must be appealing if people are going to live anywhere near them.
A better example is this:
The Volkswagon Glass Factory in Dresden, Germany.
Europe already has a trend of making more appealing factories because centralization and population density still play roles in the demands of business.
This factory is basically located next to a giant greenspace in what seems to be a relatively dense arrangement. A typical bare bones American factory would not sit well in this kind of environment.
Re: trace, from way back - while the W is probably a more interesting hotel to discuss for architects, we are already all over that market like flies on poop. If we want to make new markets (and possibly make ourselves more money), we should figure out where architects can be of use in areas that are traditionally underserved by those with our type of training. Hence, Hampton Inn (or others like it) is more interesting in terms of potential for growth.
From the above discussions, it seems like architects can expand into new markets through one of two ways. The first way is to expand demand for more traditional 'architectural services' by convincing new clients on the value and effectiveness of our ideas, designs, and services. The way this is done is through 'education of the public' (e.g., salesmanship) on the benefits of good design (and, more importantly for you, whatever it is that *you* consider good design ;-) ). This could take the form of 'force feeding' a design sensibility to the client, or it could take the form of quantified data that describes the value of a 'brand identity' and perceptions of 'good design', or something in between these two extremes. Either way, it is an intensive marketing effort that incrementally pushes the borders of architectural service outward.
The second way is to invent new architectural services that use our skills to address needs that a client may have, or improvements that a client may make. It might not even be full design services. Parametric Hampton Inn generators might be one example, as might 'residential-area factory integration' services (totally agree on expanding into markets that are underserved by architects - I'm sure if we look deeper into these markets, we can find ways to improve things) or design-build (irrespective of its individual problems - I agree with the need to maintain your independence, I think clients get value from that in the long run). It takes a bit of lateral thinking, but I think inventing new types of services probably has the most potential to radically expand the scope of what it is an architect can do in the minds of the public. There was that series on the front page on architects who didn't go into 'traditional architecture' - this may be a good resource.
Ultimately, I think a combination of both approaches are needed, and are complimentary to each other. The more that clients are sold...er, educated on the value of good design, the better it is for architects (we have the market on 'good design', I think - clients probably think 'architects' when they think this). The more that we can meet the different needs of clients using 'good design' as architects, the better that we are able to convince clients that what we do has value - in design terms, and in whatever terms the client may see.
(For the record, I suppose I've also left 'design' in a sense. Design is still part of what I do, but it's not the only thing I do; there are lots of reasons I'm not a traditional architect now, but one of them is that I don't have all that much blind faith in the ability of design as a standalone profession, or (at its worst) as much more than not-all-that-critically-questioned 'taste-making' that changes through the ages. When design sensibility is combined with some technical knowledge, however, magical things can occur. Everyone is different on this, however, and I'm sure it's at least somewhat relative to talent ;-) )
I think one particular vantage point most "building designers" (architects, non-licensed 'architects', interior designers and the like) have is that they are more familiar with a wide range of products that most people, even general contractors, didn't even know existed.
Case in point: My brother is a bit of a half-assed handyman. He generally has the money, time and skills to take on big projects by himself.
He recently decided it was time to strip and demo part of his back porch. It is a porch that was ultimately designed to be a sunroom but the original owner of the house decided it wasn't worth putting windows in. He called a bunch of people about basically replacing all of the screens with windows. He got a bunch of different options and responses.
I told him to contact a commercial glazier to do an estimate about installing huge, solid glass "office windows." He told me that the commercial glazing option was 1/4th the cost and closer to what he originally wanted.
He's saving so much money on this that he's thinking about adding a second slab for an outdoor patio. And he wants a "cool way kind of like french doors to open up onto the patio." I told him about NaNa walls. Despite the cost (and the fact that the porch already has a massive header), he was excited.
When it comes down to it, the commercial glazing, patio and NaNa walls will still be about $2,000 less than what the lowest GC quoted him on to do just the porch. I talked to the glazier and asked if they did NaNa walls.
The glazier knew of them and had always wanted to use them but never had a customer request them. Because of that, the glazier offered to install the NaNa wall at no [labor] cost because the glazier wanted to use my brother's porch as a "learning opportunity." So, he's basically getting that installed for free.
So, about 60 linear feet of glazing, a small NaNa wall and a back patio for less than what he expected to pay... and there will be no stucco or paint work needing to be done!
Uxbridge, did your brother do this renovation in the last couple of years? Manufacturers are very desperate for ANY sale these days. Just like once proud Design architects are happy to get ADA jobs.
Your example may not be applicable in better times.
Also, tell your brother someone on the internet called him an ADA job :)
Holy cow! A few days off and a lot of posts to read...
I can't reply to every single point, but I'll try to contribute to the few that stuck to me.
> outed wrote:
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.
That IS my point. I don't suggest that at all. It's precisely that i have a conflict - my love for architecture (the initial reason why I wanted to do it) and the fact that the industry is non-sustainable...
>MixmasterFestus wrote:
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.
My reason for suggesting the de-emphasis of theory and more on the business side is really right on what MixMasterFestus wrote here.
I don't intend to take the art out completely, hence my suggestion to have theory and star-design on the PhD level.... That way, the supply of idealistic (and inexperienced) architects is cut out (Therefore no ambitious wanna-be-famous young architects will start a firm and ruin the market with their super low contracts)
Enrollment into Architecture PhD requires X years experience with exposure to X roles in the industry (or *maybe* a requirement that he must own and run a profitable firm for x years). By then, the architect has enough experience to know that he needs to integrate these 2 together...
>Rusty wrote:
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.
Thanks Rusty for your input. (even though I am in your own words, IhateMarxist's "chewtoy") Let me go straight to the discussion. Personal name-calling is secondary...
You said: With worthless disposable land, come worthless disposable building... However, land worthless one day, can be worth a fortune another. The economic concept is Utility - which is to say what benefit does the land offer? I remember my architecture professor said that at one time, rents and property at the higher levels of a tall building are worth less than the those on the 2nd and 3rd level because nobody liked climbing stairs. However, after the invention and the implementation of the elevator, it reversed. I use this as an example where prices are a direct result of whatever a person willing to pay for a benefit (definition of "benefit" according to the buyer's point of view, not seller's)
Therefore land zonings has huge impact on real estate values and therefore building types. This is also in line to the Real Estate notion of "location" affecting land value.
You are right that 10% design fee on nothing is still nothing. Therefore architects need to weigh the pros and cons of picking this contract. Do I (1) pick it up for fear that I lose some client relationships to others? Do I do this project, knowing that the check that comes in won't even cover the costs of my employees wages and company expenses?
Or (2) Do I bite my lip and refuse this contract? Let other companies (not excluding contractors, engineers) pick this up.
Let them make the loss.
I'll leave this part of the discussion to a later time cos it's another box of worms.... One bit at a time...
> JustinAtherMaud wrote:
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.
That IS the reason why the Hampton Inn exists - to tap into that demand. Suppose any of us travelled on a business trip as an architect to meet a client, which hotel do you choose? The cost issue is definitely an issue. It shouldn't be bad enough that makes me want to choose another hotel, but good enough for me to stay here at the price I am willing to offer.
For any other extra comforts, it is only fair that the hotellier charges extra. Then it is up to the consumer/customer make that choice: Am I willing to part this chunk of my money for this benefit? Yes? good. No? I'm going to another hotel to look.
And it is up to hotel owners to figure out where is that window of missed opportunity where customers draw the line and say, "No, your hotel sucks, I'm going to another one."
Once we understand the minds of hotelliers, architects have a mind to better understand the expectations from a client. Saves time, saves frustration with mismatched expectations...
k8:"I remember my architecture professor said that at one time, rents and property at the higher levels of a tall building are worth less than the those on the 2nd and 3rd level because nobody liked climbing stairs. However, after the invention and the implementation of the elevator, it reversed."
Last I observed, top floors are still not desirable in eastern european cities as the 'lifts' are constantly breaking down. If anything, your analogy equates elevators to highways. I'm saying that we've stretched the limits of highway usefulness.
I always complain about 99% of modern architecture being either plain ugly, mediocre, or just ultra-wasteful. But given the context of the modern 'urban' fabric, there really aren't that many design opportunities to be had. Hampton Inn redesign gig? No thanks. It's a job for someone who willfully doesn't get it.
"Therefore land zonings has huge impact on real estate"
Agreed. And these decisions are often made by people with no creativity or passion. That's why I was asking for votes.
Actually, in Roman times... the costliest city residences were always on the second floor. Roman cities were so prone to constantly burning down that the higher floors became liabilities as they were the hardest to escape when a building did catch fire.
I would also posit that zoning laws unfairly punish business owners than they do personal residences. Commercial property in the use is both artificially scarce and over priced. This results in poorer job choices and lower wages since the majority of money is going elsewhere.
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.
I'd like to present otherwise (in favor of Real Estate), for the following reasons:
Value creation happens through *knowledge work* (as opposed to production work) at the Real Estate level, and not the construction level.
Analysis of location, relevance to market demand, finance and relationship to banks and nation's GDP and economy, etc happens on that level. Therefore value-creation and creation of demand THROUGH DESIGN happens there.
Construction is an efficiency issue. The one who runs the operations efficiently can build it for the cheapest price while maintaining quality.
For the most part, it's all about following the blueprint...
Let's use an example other than Apple...
Seagate harddrives. All design parameters happen at Seagate - how many bytes can I have in a package, pricing, etc. (Relating to buildings, these paramters will be, how many sq ft., how many units, etc)
The shell will be designed by a designer that will design accordingly to appeal to whoever the harddrive maker wants to design it for.
ANOTHER company assembles the parts procured from different companies. (disks, springs, chips, usb ports, etc). - this would be equivalent to a construction company... They just follow the plans set by the parent company (in our example: Seagate) Note: Seagate could choose to acquire and buy over the entire operation of an assembler if they think it is cheaper to do so. They leave the running to managers, but still report to Seagate's chief.
This is why I choose Real Estate...
Otherwise, did I miss anything? Or is my argument failed here? Would like to hear thoughts....
> Rustystuds wrote:
Agreed. And these decisions are often made by people with no creativity or passion. That's why I was asking for votes.
Only because Real Estate people are clients and we are selling our services. Between buyers and sellers - buyers call the shots because they pay the money.
But if architects are under the umbrella of the Real Estate Company, we are more on equal ground.
However, noted on the possible political struggles between managers and designers. But designers need to understand how the system works before they can convince why the removal of a design feature is bad for business. Until we teach the tools in school, we have no ammunition for argument/persuasion for a design feature. And theory classes do not provide that ammunition.
(Not all design companies are high-end. Ikea is a budget conscious furniture maker. Not the best design, not the best furniture, but I admire that they can do what is even decently called "Design" and still cut a decent profit - enough to open chains around the world)
When I started architecture school I was already extremely creative and capable of thinking outside the box (that was why everyone in my life, teachers, parents, other relatives was telling me I would make a great architect). Admittedly I didn't have much clue about construction or how projects were financed or managed etc. So I went to architecture school thinking I would learn the stuff that would make me into an architect. But they told me that we don't do that here. So I excelled in advanced cutting and pasting, produced some eye candy and landed an internship in a firm where I was determined to learn the trade. But they told me they don't teach here that I needed to sit in the chair and do drawings. Still wondering where I was supposed to get my foundation in the trade. The foundation, after all, is the most important part of any design.
On having people do what they do best: we had the shopaholic credit junkie girlie ordering our supplies... is that what you mean?? ... we had boxes and boxes of turquoise and purple post-it notes and and pink ink pens when we went under!!! No one denied that she was our most experienced shopper, so we made the right decision, right?
as my husband says, the architect's responsibility to the client really shouldn't be the most important factor...a building will probably be around long after the client will. one of the lessons of the theory-based arch-school curriculum is to evaluate the larger and longer-term context of what you are building...responsibility to the social context, future use, improvement of general built environment, etc. the client is paying, yes, but we all have to live with the project. all these requirements should be factored into the architect's work.
so the emphasis on pleasing/responding to the client's needs in this discussion is, in my opinion, overstated.
LMAO at this discussion. It's pretty much the same "young and idealistic - change the world talk". The profession is what it is. Your life, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.
“Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs are people who have come alive.” – Howard Thurman
"a building will probably be around long after the client will. one of the lessons of the theory-based arch-school curriculum is to evaluate the larger and longer-term context of what you are building...responsibility to the social context, future use, improvement of general built environment, etc."
If that is the case maybe we should be designing with future additions in mind like Stewart Brand talks about in "How Buidlings Learn". CEUs would be earned for studying post occupancy evaluations instead of manufactures marketing luncheons. The cutting edge style currently in fashion would be completely irrelevant.
Even though there is part of me that agrees with what your saying I wonder how far an office would go with this as it mission statement.
LMAO at this discussion. It's pretty much the same "old and reluctance to do anything non-selfish talk". The profession isn't what it isn't. Your life, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter despite being a function of architecture and infrastructure.
K8
Real estate? I see you are defending the faith of developers, of the importance of deciphering zoning law in a tight market, the ability to see potential in both square footage and marletable qualities of a sites potential?!?!??!
That's architecure? Conceptual estimation of space planning with eye candy imagery? you have to. go to school for that? Whut?
No$
Any cad monkey renderer can take a a ass monkeys guess at. A properties potential.
Being a smart oppurtunist does not make you smart.
My dog is oppurtunistic.
Construction man construction.
You don't exactly have to goto college for either real estate or construction.
Oh wait we are worthless, not sure why I bothered.
> Strawbeary wrote:
When I started architecture school I was already extremely creative and capable of thinking outside the box
...
Still wondering where I was supposed to get my foundation in the trade. The foundation, after all, is the most important part of any design.
Same here.
I think artistic talent is something you either have or you don't. And I think attempting to teach art using theory takes up too much valuable class time.
I had an opportunity to work for a stararchitect, but only on one condition: I had to work for free. (Whether my opportunty to work for a starchitect is due to my portofolio or the fact that I was cheap, I do not know. Anybody can debate, and contest my talent based on this point.)
So I went the other way... and I got what I wanted. I skipped the CAD stage and went straight to meeting clients under a director, learning design development, construction, cost estimation, etc... and I began to understand the complexities that faced an architectural practice.
I realized architecture school is deficient in some areas.
> elinor wrote:
as my husband says, the architect's responsibility to the client really shouldn't be the most important factor...a building will probably be around long after the client will. one of the lessons of the theory-based arch-school curriculum is to evaluate the larger and longer-term context of what you are building...responsibility to the social context, future use, improvement of general built environment
I hope you also practice architecture as a profession and/or have had to run your own company...
I understand what you are saying about building design evolving as society changes and understanding the larger and longer-term context of what you are building.
But note that architects talk about forces that influence design: site context, social/cultural context. The climate and sun orientation affect design. Traffic patterns affecting design, etc.
There are countless of forces influencing a design all at once. But I find architects always fail to address one important force - the economic force. And I think we have paid the price. (see the original post of this discussion - "Is 27k/yr way too low?")
Politics and society is greatly affected by trade and commerce.
If it weren't for trade between the venetians and the chinese, I think art and other ideas would have had a harder time to exchange.
The merchant as a profession has been around a long time and contributed to civilization - (both for good and for bad)
Also, many of the great pieces of art that we admire and study are in fact commisioned by wealthy people and in the name of religion (whom many devotees would freely give of thier substance to honor their gods/God).
Therefore, the art that was produced under such circumstances are an honest representation of the society and cultural context... they reflect the wealth of the politcal rule of that time; and that wealth shows itself in works of art.
Economics is a valid force, and we should include it in the architectural education as a factor that influences design, along with other forces that influence design as taught in school.
> sanguebom wrote:
LMAO at this discussion. It's pretty much the same "young and idealistic - change the world talk". The profession is what it is. Your life, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.
Sanguebom, do you have any suggestions to increase the pay in uour profession? Read the original post of this discussion ("Is 27k/yr way too low?") Is this an exception? Or is a decreasing wage a on-going trend and will continue to do so into total destruction of the value of our services? I'd like to hear your contribution to solutions.
> Uxbridge
See how that conversation easily flips?
I saw.
Does his scornful remarks *attempt* to solve the problem? No. I don't expect him to solve it, but at least engage in meaningful discussion towards a proposal - Some kind of intelligent analysis of the current situation...
Architects pride themselves on being problem solvers and being able to handle EXTREMELY LARGE chunks of information and process them into a useful solution.
I saw that as a lack of ability to process information.
A building is built brick-by-brick, bolt-by-bolt, channel-by-channel. For an architect to say, this problem is too big to handle and too complex to process is simply mental laziness. Such people are incapable of of doing good architecture in the first place. I'm sure there are many great and competent architects on archinect who would love a challange to tackle the economic issue as part of the design problem... and... a larger design problem - the design of our profession.
> olafdesignninja wrote:
Real estate? I see you are defending the faith of developers, of the importance of deciphering zoning law in a tight market, the ability to see potential in both square footage and marletable qualities of a sites potential?!?!??!
That's architecure? Conceptual estimation of space planning with eye candy imagery? you have to. go to school for that? Whut?
Well, I presented my reasons "why" in a rational manner - citing knowledge work happening at the real estate level as a reason.
Would knowledge work (as opposed to production work) happen at the constructor's level? I might not have thought out my argument correctly, so I'd like to hear your point of view, how else to increase the value of our services.
Maybe you have had bad experience with dealing with some clients/real estate developers. But we have had gone the same way for many years, I am only questioning, are we missing some important knowledge/information that will help our industry?
Btw olafdesignninja, do you run your own architecture company? How much do you pay your fresh grad employee looking for a job at your firm? I assume it is more than 27k/yr, but I'd like to know how successful you are at juggling the conflict between running a sustainable business while remaining true to art.
Because honestly, I can't reconcile it, unless I admit I am missing knowledge in the economics department in order to exploit it FOR THE BENEFIT of ART.
If architects are against the suggestions I have provided, I'd love to hear your ideas.
Any suggestions and possible ways to build a more sustainable architecture practice:
One that allows the art to flourish for the betterment of our environment, and at the same time improve the lives of our employees and practicing professionals...
(no 27k/yr [sub-minimum] wage for our fresh grads)
What are the ways we can change the trend of decreasing wage/decreasing contract sums.
An architect struggling to pay bills isn't living an enhanced-life, therefore he would be incapable of doing anything to enhance our environment (i.e. other people's lives), since he can't even enhance his own life. It is for a "noble" cause... if you think about it.
Architects are smart and intelligent people that can analyze complex problems, so I expect some kind of intelligent analysis and using those analysis to propose some solutions.
[Mockers - pls try to contribute constructively]
to olafdesignninja who wrote:
"Construction man construction."
Assume architects have total knowledge of construction and are responsible for all constrcution work instead of contracting them....
If architecture companies merges with construction companies into one practicing entity, what would happen?
Would this result in innovation in architecture? (better design/art?)
Or would it result in innovation in construction? (Cheaper and/or better ways of building?)
Could be both...
How does one address the unresolved issue of conflict with clients on design vs. commercial interest?
By having architecture and construction companies merged as one entity, architects still have to face the prospect of clients who demand a questionable change to a favorable design feature.
That is unless, 1) by merging construction with architecture, one leverages on the technical knowledge and the client's
ignorance by arguing that a bad design decision results in a technical problem and the client have no way of telling...
So client's HAVE to listen to us; and we can charge them for this expertise.
Or 2)
we make Real Estate companies irrelevant by not allowing them to be our clients. I.e. we are our own clients and dictate
how the spaces are design, built, marketed and sold to the people.
We pocket the percentage of the profits from these sales instead of going through the Real Estate companies.
What would be the implications and the result assuming
this is possible?
so let's do both K8...Real Estate is the prospective and Construction is the excecuted.
DBIA exists. DesignBuild fasted growiing form of project delivery.
AEC firms exists. Developers like John Portman (I, II, III, etc...) probably do it all
on many projects i've seen on the Real Estate Phase as you kind of classify it the marketing packet fee higher than the design fee, so i'm not totally against what you're proposing.
but their is a lot of risk on the Projspective end, since it's only prospectivce and realtors don't make any money until something is sold. this is pretty much what business development is like when dealing with developers anyway...10 free designs for 1 that happens!
to answer your other question, i'm lucky enough to be surviving this economy and when I have more work than I can handle I pay my regulars $40/hr and I would never pay anyone less than $25, eventhough I have worked for less.
all succesfful business architects i know treat their employees as humans (note)
"1) by merging construction with architecture, one leverages on the technical knowledge and the client's
ignorance by arguing that a bad design decision results in a technical problem and the client have no way of telling...
So client's HAVE to listen to us; and we can charge them for this expertise."
ummmm YESSS.
this how it works all the time to some degree or another anyway..
architect tells designer he can't do it because of code issues.
engineer telss engineer he can't do it because of the laws of physics.
designer tells both architect and engineer they can't do it because it looks like crap.
contractor says he can't do it because it cost to much.
i understand the whole checks and balances, but as controlled inspections in NYC become a third party game the client will have something to check their design build package with.
to your Real Estate point
the realtor says, don't do that it won't sell.
now if you're one entity that can answer all these questions that's great. this is what good owners and developers do anyway (they have a staff from all fields and pocket full of favorite inspection consultants).
how do you educate the real american urban builder - the developer? how do i become a develper without money?
you teach them how to be valuable to someone with money. There is money everywhere (granted, harder to get people to part with it these days, but there is no shortage of money).
But you will not convince anyone of anything by only being able to put some drawings together. You have to show that them that your vision will make money. This includes a quality design (yes, quality design is a better investment), sensible cost expectations and reasonable market expectations/strategy.
You are correct, larger developers have staff, but this isn't rocket science, it isn't hard, it just takes time to learn. If this was taught in school you'd know more than most before graduation.
This goes full circle to school. Those teaching theory can't get a job anywhere else, so they aren't going to change. Those that have the expertise to teach the skills above will, most likely, not be happy with a teacher's salary or a salary of an architect, so good luck getting them to teach. Now, I think we'll find more and more that are/were architects that would like to share their knowledge (think Segal).
One thing not being taken into consideration in this debate is the macroeconomics of the Global situation Americans find themselves. Frankly our purchasing power has eroded tremendously. You dont notice it in the food prices because we continually combat buying power with production enhancements. Same too with our computers and gadgets and cars. But where we do see it is in the large items like civil works and home construction. The same complaints I hear from architects i also hear from engineers and contractors, that they cant charge enough, they cant compete with low cost labor or competitors who dont pay their taxes. Think about it, a carpenter used to be a solid, upper middle class or at least middle class wage earner. In some of the more affluent areas of the country you can still find them. But moreso than not, you now see carpenters comidified into low wage immigrant framing crews, some legal some not almost all skirting some form of taxes or insurance. And yet, its still too costly for most people to build a house let alone hire a proper architect to design and build one. So I think until we make our currency more valuable, increase our purchasing power, their is no answer. One of the wisest things I've ever heard was that housing prices didnt go up in this last boom, the dollar just lost it's purchasing power.
there is a huge guilt trip in this profession concerning design ability. we are all taught to be designers, so somehow most architects who end up on the management side or the technical side have some kind of inferiority complex. i saw it all the time working at a large firm. i did a lot of front-end design, and it was always undermined by both the managers above me, who needed to put their stamp on the design of the project by changing things just enough to mess up any sort of clarity and effectiveness the actual designers had spent a long time working out, and by the detailers, who would whine and get all passive-aggressive any time they had to deviate from standard details. (and these were relatively conservative projects...the 'design' aims should be understood to be quite modest.)
all the non-designer architects hate the designers, which leads to a seriously counterintuitive collaboration where we shoot each other in the foot before we give anyone else a chance. i also see aspects of that in this discussion...every time design comes up, it's a hop, skip, and jump to a debate about the merits of 'high art'...there's A LOT of good and effective design you have to get through before you get to the high-art level...it's all on a scale.
what i think would go pretty far towards 'fixing' this profession is if architects would just learn to be ok with whatever role they find themselves to be good at, even if it's the business side or the technical side, without tearing down the entire basis of the profession, which historically has been in design. if you're ok with building utilitarian buildings and are frustrated at working for a design architect, go ahead and BE a contractor or a real estate developer. it'll be way better than being an architect who works for a contractor or a developer. stop trying to skew this profession towards that, and go ahead and just do those things. then, when you do need some design input, hire us!
apologies for not having the time to go through all the previous entries, i just skimmed, but in response to k8, i feel the same way about the 'greater responsibility' i wrote about...it's all on a scale, and you do as much as you can with each project. the economic side is important too, but i think you're giving it a bit too much leverage.
ps has anyone here ever worked in interior design? clients pay way more for that stuff than for architecture, because it's reflective of status and personal image. and people pay more for a room at the standard than at a chain hotel, and more for a diane von furstenberg dress than a generic one. there's an economic benefit to making generic versions of pretty much everything, but most people will agree that there's a premium to quality, style, innovation, and any of the other aspects of good design that is still relevant. an apple laptop costs how much more than a dell, and how many people do you know who own one? so rather than dismantling the design-centric aspect of the profession, how about we try to make it as relevant as it is in other areas?
people pay more for a room at the standard than at a chain hotel
To be perfectly honest, The Standard is a hotel chain that goes out of its way to engage guests and the general public.
It caters to "fun."
The serious focus on design both reinforces a split from standard hotel fair and that the hotel thinks seriously about culture.
Many well-designed hotels are a bore. They're stiff, they take themselves too seriously and they have a really perverse sense of "refinement."
The Standard on the other hand encourages guests to get rowdy, it caters to the neighborhoods around it [bingo night anyone?], it throws lots of lovely parties, it plays well with other businesses by striking up interest partnerships and it makes itself be an otherwise lovable entity. The bigger issue is that The Standard is playing Russian roulette with literally a hundred million dollars worth of liabilities.
Fun is both a risk and a liability.
That's an overall problem with architecture. Architecture lacks humor, fun and jest.
It has no personality. It is cold blooded, methodical and without any link to humanity other than holocaust memorials, "serious business" museums, hospitals and instruments of torture [prison, schools, "neighborhood centers."]
Despite the irrelevance of it today, some modes of historicist architecture still have fun in them.
Whether it be naked statues peeing all over each other, hidden messages in murals, collections of humorous botanical specimens used in decoration, fantastical buildings dedicated to outrageous deities or visual histories of bloody battles... they are all still fun!.
elinor: "management side or the technical side have some kind of inferiority complex. i saw it all the time working at a large firm."
You worked for a crappy firm then. My work experience (from both the design and technical sides) has been largely in productive, collaborative environments. Small percentage of firms have a fundamentally corrosive approach to architecture. Working for them or consulting for them sucked.
[i]"all the non-designer architects hate the designers"[/]
Your definition of design is very narrow. What you consider to be design account for 15% of architect's fee.
I suggest working for a smaller firm that does smaller projects where you get to do a little bit of everything.
an apple laptop costs how much more than a dell, and how many people do you know who own one?
I have been an Apple guy for many years. The OS is head and shoulders above what windows offers. Going from Windows ME at work to OS 10 at home was a real eye opener. Windows would crash often, sometimes multiple times per day. OS 10 crashed only a few times per year.
Yes I think Apple has beautiful designs, but I am willing to fork over the extra cash because Apple computers work better.
I came across a help wanted ad for a designer. When I opened it it was for a manufacturing draftsman. Still a quick compare & contrast might be interesting.
Requirements:
One year minimum of CAD Certificate or Technical trade school
No prior work experience required
***$32,000-$42,500 annually****
There are multiple apartment listings for 2 bedroom units from $700-$900 indicating a cost of living significantly lower than NYC.
Im not sure what tech school costs these days but let's say our draftsman has 20% - 25% of the debt that our BS arch person does.
Taking the cost of living and debt into account the difference is staggering. I realize that not all jobs pay the same and there are other rewards besides financial compensation. Based on this ad though $27k is ridiculous after a 4 year eduction? To me the answer is F yeah it is. Why?
1. No offense to Cheesus, but perhaps they need a lot of teaching to be productive. The employer sees someone with future potential and is willing to work with them, possibly paying them more than they are currently worth, while training them
2. It is a low ball offer from a firm taking advantage of the economy.
3. It is an offer from a firm that runs it's business poorly and therefore can not make a good offer.
4. The education we receive is not working. We are not being taught the things we need to secure gainful employment.
I do not remember seeing any response if this offer is outside the norm or what recent graduates can expect going forward. Unfortunately receiving any offer might be unusual right now :(
Foucault would say that all truth claims are power plays [Which, in itself, is actually a truth claim.].
But we should counter that by upholding that truth claims will exist regardless of how we respond and what truly matters is not that there is or is not a truth claim, but what is in the content of the claim.
I would agree that the profession and the academy [and especially in the States] have divorced themselves.
But I would also say that what you're ultimately espousing is yet another theory. Though a slightly backwards one.
The architect, as currently imagined, serves as the client's voice, and more importantly perhaps the only voice the constituency has. By constituency I reference the public, who may use the building but not have a hand in its making.
To respond to the OP: I believe you have the right intent, but your focus is misguided. Architects should not align themselves with developers. Who seek to make a profit and then move on. Architects should realign themselves with builders. IE General and Sub Contractors. The GC actually has a vested interest in providing a decent product, as his or her name lives or dies on the product. The trouble is that clients and therefore [and only therefore] GC's don't always see the benefits of offering good design and quality construction at the outset. It's the age old capital versus life cycle cost.
The trick, then, is to marry the GC with the architect and produce a construct that cares about the quality of the building.
Or, essentially, to augment the theory to be more concerned with real world constructs.
As status quo plays out: green grass, grey concrete, black asphalt and white walls are the backdrop upon which singular prolific works of architecture play out. The Maxxi can only exist because it has the backdrop of a banal Roman suburb to play against.
What would happen if green grass, grey concrete, black asphalt and white walls became the tools with which we focus on and design?
Why would a GC have more of a vested interest in the final product than a developer? Some developers suck, some are horrible and cut corners left and right, but this is also true of architects and contractors.
A developer is also building a reputation and a portfolio. I'd argue that a developer also has a vested interest in quality design, as that equals money in their pocket - better design will sell quicker. A GC has little, if any, concern with the design. They make their money one way or another. This is also true of the architect. The developer is the one that takes the risk and is held accountable to balancing the economics with the quality and design.
Not that this is always the case, just that people on here tend to make a broad sweeping statement that developers are 'bad' and architects are 'good'. It is a team effort.
Well, perhaps this is a question based on personal experience, and is inherently subjective.
In my experience a GC is more concerned with building a portfolio because they are much closer to the design and construction process. Their product is ultimately physical, not merely financial. Whereas a developer is somewhat more removed and cares much more for the immediate bottom line than for something like life cycle costs.
Also, the developer is being judged by different criteria, namely how well the project performs economically. I guarantee no developer wants to work with Zumthor.
However, the GC is situated in a weird construct along with the architect whereas if he or she screws up, they might not make it to the next project. So his or her value is moreso judged on the physical performance of the building, not merely the economical.
For example, building an economically successful stripmall might be considered a success for a developer, but I doubt Tishman or McCarthey or Turner would ever include a strip mall on their website.
As I said, this is slightly nebulous, feel free to disagree.
Oh no, I didn't mean that all developers are bad, nor that all architects are 'good'. Just look at Dick Busche. It is a team effort, and the sooner architects and GCs and developers all realize we're ultimately on the same side the better it is likely to be.
I agree with all that, and it does depend on building type, location, etc.
I do wish there was more emphasis put on this team approach in school. I tried to do some of it in grad school, but without support from faculty it is just too much work in too short of time.
A shame grads know who derrida is and not anything about cost and profits. As intellectually stimulating as his writings may be (or have been), they do not a building make...or architecture of any sort, for that matter.
jplourde - actually, zumthor's worked with several developers over his career: the housing in spittlehof; a stalled housing plan in helsinki, a current project converting a small warehouse district to mixed use; and his house for allain debotton's development of small, architect designed rental homes across england.
in the end, quality has to be equally defined and embraced by everyone in the process, from the creative visionary down to the tile layer. it's why so many projects with great intentions fall short of their initial promise.
See my previous quote for a constructive response.
Speculating and talking this and that without concrete courses of action while massaging your ego are wastes of time. If you believe so strongly that your life revolves around architecture and without it you cease to exist than I strongly suggest you take your ideas and concerns to the appropriate parties and fight for it like your damn life depends on it. You owe it to yourself.
“To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.” – Oscar Wilde
The Architecture Profession - suggestions and discussions on how to "save" it [Improve it]
Except both of those buildings were built in 19th century and in urban areas. That more or less proves my point that factories must be appealing if people are going to live anywhere near them.
A better example is this:
The Volkswagon Glass Factory in Dresden, Germany.
Europe already has a trend of making more appealing factories because centralization and population density still play roles in the demands of business.
This factory is basically located next to a giant greenspace in what seems to be a relatively dense arrangement. A typical bare bones American factory would not sit well in this kind of environment.
Re: trace, from way back - while the W is probably a more interesting hotel to discuss for architects, we are already all over that market like flies on poop. If we want to make new markets (and possibly make ourselves more money), we should figure out where architects can be of use in areas that are traditionally underserved by those with our type of training. Hence, Hampton Inn (or others like it) is more interesting in terms of potential for growth.
From the above discussions, it seems like architects can expand into new markets through one of two ways. The first way is to expand demand for more traditional 'architectural services' by convincing new clients on the value and effectiveness of our ideas, designs, and services. The way this is done is through 'education of the public' (e.g., salesmanship) on the benefits of good design (and, more importantly for you, whatever it is that *you* consider good design ;-) ). This could take the form of 'force feeding' a design sensibility to the client, or it could take the form of quantified data that describes the value of a 'brand identity' and perceptions of 'good design', or something in between these two extremes. Either way, it is an intensive marketing effort that incrementally pushes the borders of architectural service outward.
The second way is to invent new architectural services that use our skills to address needs that a client may have, or improvements that a client may make. It might not even be full design services. Parametric Hampton Inn generators might be one example, as might 'residential-area factory integration' services (totally agree on expanding into markets that are underserved by architects - I'm sure if we look deeper into these markets, we can find ways to improve things) or design-build (irrespective of its individual problems - I agree with the need to maintain your independence, I think clients get value from that in the long run). It takes a bit of lateral thinking, but I think inventing new types of services probably has the most potential to radically expand the scope of what it is an architect can do in the minds of the public. There was that series on the front page on architects who didn't go into 'traditional architecture' - this may be a good resource.
Ultimately, I think a combination of both approaches are needed, and are complimentary to each other. The more that clients are sold...er, educated on the value of good design, the better it is for architects (we have the market on 'good design', I think - clients probably think 'architects' when they think this). The more that we can meet the different needs of clients using 'good design' as architects, the better that we are able to convince clients that what we do has value - in design terms, and in whatever terms the client may see.
(For the record, I suppose I've also left 'design' in a sense. Design is still part of what I do, but it's not the only thing I do; there are lots of reasons I'm not a traditional architect now, but one of them is that I don't have all that much blind faith in the ability of design as a standalone profession, or (at its worst) as much more than not-all-that-critically-questioned 'taste-making' that changes through the ages. When design sensibility is combined with some technical knowledge, however, magical things can occur. Everyone is different on this, however, and I'm sure it's at least somewhat relative to talent ;-) )
At Festus:
I think one particular vantage point most "building designers" (architects, non-licensed 'architects', interior designers and the like) have is that they are more familiar with a wide range of products that most people, even general contractors, didn't even know existed.
Case in point: My brother is a bit of a half-assed handyman. He generally has the money, time and skills to take on big projects by himself.
He recently decided it was time to strip and demo part of his back porch. It is a porch that was ultimately designed to be a sunroom but the original owner of the house decided it wasn't worth putting windows in. He called a bunch of people about basically replacing all of the screens with windows. He got a bunch of different options and responses.
I told him to contact a commercial glazier to do an estimate about installing huge, solid glass "office windows." He told me that the commercial glazing option was 1/4th the cost and closer to what he originally wanted.
He's saving so much money on this that he's thinking about adding a second slab for an outdoor patio. And he wants a "cool way kind of like french doors to open up onto the patio." I told him about NaNa walls. Despite the cost (and the fact that the porch already has a massive header), he was excited.
When it comes down to it, the commercial glazing, patio and NaNa walls will still be about $2,000 less than what the lowest GC quoted him on to do just the porch. I talked to the glazier and asked if they did NaNa walls.
The glazier knew of them and had always wanted to use them but never had a customer request them. Because of that, the glazier offered to install the NaNa wall at no [labor] cost because the glazier wanted to use my brother's porch as a "learning opportunity." So, he's basically getting that installed for free.
So, about 60 linear feet of glazing, a small NaNa wall and a back patio for less than what he expected to pay... and there will be no stucco or paint work needing to be done!
Uxbridge, did your brother do this renovation in the last couple of years? Manufacturers are very desperate for ANY sale these days. Just like once proud Design architects are happy to get ADA jobs.
Your example may not be applicable in better times.
Also, tell your brother someone on the internet called him an ADA job :)
Holy cow! A few days off and a lot of posts to read...
I can't reply to every single point, but I'll try to contribute to the few that stuck to me.
> outed wrote:
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.
That IS my point. I don't suggest that at all. It's precisely that i have a conflict - my love for architecture (the initial reason why I wanted to do it) and the fact that the industry is non-sustainable...
>MixmasterFestus wrote:
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.
My reason for suggesting the de-emphasis of theory and more on the business side is really right on what MixMasterFestus wrote here.
I don't intend to take the art out completely, hence my suggestion to have theory and star-design on the PhD level.... That way, the supply of idealistic (and inexperienced) architects is cut out (Therefore no ambitious wanna-be-famous young architects will start a firm and ruin the market with their super low contracts)
Enrollment into Architecture PhD requires X years experience with exposure to X roles in the industry (or *maybe* a requirement that he must own and run a profitable firm for x years). By then, the architect has enough experience to know that he needs to integrate these 2 together...
>Rusty wrote:
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.
Thanks Rusty for your input. (even though I am in your own words, IhateMarxist's "chewtoy") Let me go straight to the discussion. Personal name-calling is secondary...
You said: With worthless disposable land, come worthless disposable building... However, land worthless one day, can be worth a fortune another. The economic concept is Utility - which is to say what benefit does the land offer? I remember my architecture professor said that at one time, rents and property at the higher levels of a tall building are worth less than the those on the 2nd and 3rd level because nobody liked climbing stairs. However, after the invention and the implementation of the elevator, it reversed. I use this as an example where prices are a direct result of whatever a person willing to pay for a benefit (definition of "benefit" according to the buyer's point of view, not seller's)
Therefore land zonings has huge impact on real estate values and therefore building types. This is also in line to the Real Estate notion of "location" affecting land value.
You are right that 10% design fee on nothing is still nothing. Therefore architects need to weigh the pros and cons of picking this contract. Do I (1) pick it up for fear that I lose some client relationships to others? Do I do this project, knowing that the check that comes in won't even cover the costs of my employees wages and company expenses?
Or (2) Do I bite my lip and refuse this contract? Let other companies (not excluding contractors, engineers) pick this up.
Let them make the loss.
I'll leave this part of the discussion to a later time cos it's another box of worms.... One bit at a time...
> JustinAtherMaud wrote:
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.
That IS the reason why the Hampton Inn exists - to tap into that demand. Suppose any of us travelled on a business trip as an architect to meet a client, which hotel do you choose? The cost issue is definitely an issue. It shouldn't be bad enough that makes me want to choose another hotel, but good enough for me to stay here at the price I am willing to offer.
For any other extra comforts, it is only fair that the hotellier charges extra. Then it is up to the consumer/customer make that choice: Am I willing to part this chunk of my money for this benefit? Yes? good. No? I'm going to another hotel to look.
And it is up to hotel owners to figure out where is that window of missed opportunity where customers draw the line and say, "No, your hotel sucks, I'm going to another one."
Once we understand the minds of hotelliers, architects have a mind to better understand the expectations from a client. Saves time, saves frustration with mismatched expectations...
While I speaking up for addressing the pragmatics of architecture practice. I am NOT against the art side of it.
I just believe that our architecture education has been too skewed and I have to compensate heavily to the other side to get people thinking.
k8:"I remember my architecture professor said that at one time, rents and property at the higher levels of a tall building are worth less than the those on the 2nd and 3rd level because nobody liked climbing stairs. However, after the invention and the implementation of the elevator, it reversed."
Last I observed, top floors are still not desirable in eastern european cities as the 'lifts' are constantly breaking down. If anything, your analogy equates elevators to highways. I'm saying that we've stretched the limits of highway usefulness.
I always complain about 99% of modern architecture being either plain ugly, mediocre, or just ultra-wasteful. But given the context of the modern 'urban' fabric, there really aren't that many design opportunities to be had. Hampton Inn redesign gig? No thanks. It's a job for someone who willfully doesn't get it.
"Therefore land zonings has huge impact on real estate"
Agreed. And these decisions are often made by people with no creativity or passion. That's why I was asking for votes.
Vote rusty! One free chewtoy for everyone :)
Actually, in Roman times... the costliest city residences were always on the second floor. Roman cities were so prone to constantly burning down that the higher floors became liabilities as they were the hardest to escape when a building did catch fire.
I would also posit that zoning laws unfairly punish business owners than they do personal residences. Commercial property in the use is both artificially scarce and over priced. This results in poorer job choices and lower wages since the majority of money is going elsewhere.
In conclusion, popping Henny XO, all these hoes up on my dick.
> olafdesign ninja wrote:
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.
I'd like to present otherwise (in favor of Real Estate), for the following reasons:
Value creation happens through *knowledge work* (as opposed to production work) at the Real Estate level, and not the construction level.
Analysis of location, relevance to market demand, finance and relationship to banks and nation's GDP and economy, etc happens on that level. Therefore value-creation and creation of demand THROUGH DESIGN happens there.
Construction is an efficiency issue. The one who runs the operations efficiently can build it for the cheapest price while maintaining quality.
For the most part, it's all about following the blueprint...
Let's use an example other than Apple...
Seagate harddrives. All design parameters happen at Seagate - how many bytes can I have in a package, pricing, etc. (Relating to buildings, these paramters will be, how many sq ft., how many units, etc)
The shell will be designed by a designer that will design accordingly to appeal to whoever the harddrive maker wants to design it for.
ANOTHER company assembles the parts procured from different companies. (disks, springs, chips, usb ports, etc). - this would be equivalent to a construction company... They just follow the plans set by the parent company (in our example: Seagate) Note: Seagate could choose to acquire and buy over the entire operation of an assembler if they think it is cheaper to do so. They leave the running to managers, but still report to Seagate's chief.
This is why I choose Real Estate...
Otherwise, did I miss anything? Or is my argument failed here? Would like to hear thoughts....
> Rustystuds wrote:
Agreed. And these decisions are often made by people with no creativity or passion. That's why I was asking for votes.
Only because Real Estate people are clients and we are selling our services. Between buyers and sellers - buyers call the shots because they pay the money.
But if architects are under the umbrella of the Real Estate Company, we are more on equal ground.
However, noted on the possible political struggles between managers and designers. But designers need to understand how the system works before they can convince why the removal of a design feature is bad for business. Until we teach the tools in school, we have no ammunition for argument/persuasion for a design feature. And theory classes do not provide that ammunition.
(Not all design companies are high-end. Ikea is a budget conscious furniture maker. Not the best design, not the best furniture, but I admire that they can do what is even decently called "Design" and still cut a decent profit - enough to open chains around the world)
design/build small to medium sized projects..... learn a few trades and keep yourself employed......
When I started architecture school I was already extremely creative and capable of thinking outside the box (that was why everyone in my life, teachers, parents, other relatives was telling me I would make a great architect). Admittedly I didn't have much clue about construction or how projects were financed or managed etc. So I went to architecture school thinking I would learn the stuff that would make me into an architect. But they told me that we don't do that here. So I excelled in advanced cutting and pasting, produced some eye candy and landed an internship in a firm where I was determined to learn the trade. But they told me they don't teach here that I needed to sit in the chair and do drawings. Still wondering where I was supposed to get my foundation in the trade. The foundation, after all, is the most important part of any design.
On having people do what they do best: we had the shopaholic credit junkie girlie ordering our supplies... is that what you mean?? ... we had boxes and boxes of turquoise and purple post-it notes and and pink ink pens when we went under!!! No one denied that she was our most experienced shopper, so we made the right decision, right?
as my husband says, the architect's responsibility to the client really shouldn't be the most important factor...a building will probably be around long after the client will. one of the lessons of the theory-based arch-school curriculum is to evaluate the larger and longer-term context of what you are building...responsibility to the social context, future use, improvement of general built environment, etc. the client is paying, yes, but we all have to live with the project. all these requirements should be factored into the architect's work.
so the emphasis on pleasing/responding to the client's needs in this discussion is, in my opinion, overstated.
LMAO at this discussion. It's pretty much the same "young and idealistic - change the world talk". The profession is what it is. Your life, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.
“Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs are people who have come alive.” – Howard Thurman
"a building will probably be around long after the client will. one of the lessons of the theory-based arch-school curriculum is to evaluate the larger and longer-term context of what you are building...responsibility to the social context, future use, improvement of general built environment, etc."
If that is the case maybe we should be designing with future additions in mind like Stewart Brand talks about in "How Buidlings Learn". CEUs would be earned for studying post occupancy evaluations instead of manufactures marketing luncheons. The cutting edge style currently in fashion would be completely irrelevant.
Even though there is part of me that agrees with what your saying I wonder how far an office would go with this as it mission statement.
See how that conversation easily flips?
K8
Real estate? I see you are defending the faith of developers, of the importance of deciphering zoning law in a tight market, the ability to see potential in both square footage and marletable qualities of a sites potential?!?!??!
That's architecure? Conceptual estimation of space planning with eye candy imagery? you have to. go to school for that? Whut?
No$
Any cad monkey renderer can take a a ass monkeys guess at. A properties potential.
Being a smart oppurtunist does not make you smart.
My dog is oppurtunistic.
Construction man construction.
You don't exactly have to goto college for either real estate or construction.
Oh wait we are worthless, not sure why I bothered.
> Strawbeary wrote:
When I started architecture school I was already extremely creative and capable of thinking outside the box
...
Still wondering where I was supposed to get my foundation in the trade. The foundation, after all, is the most important part of any design.
Same here.
I think artistic talent is something you either have or you don't. And I think attempting to teach art using theory takes up too much valuable class time.
I had an opportunity to work for a stararchitect, but only on one condition: I had to work for free. (Whether my opportunty to work for a starchitect is due to my portofolio or the fact that I was cheap, I do not know. Anybody can debate, and contest my talent based on this point.)
So I went the other way... and I got what I wanted. I skipped the CAD stage and went straight to meeting clients under a director, learning design development, construction, cost estimation, etc... and I began to understand the complexities that faced an architectural practice.
I realized architecture school is deficient in some areas.
> elinor wrote:
as my husband says, the architect's responsibility to the client really shouldn't be the most important factor...a building will probably be around long after the client will. one of the lessons of the theory-based arch-school curriculum is to evaluate the larger and longer-term context of what you are building...responsibility to the social context, future use, improvement of general built environment
I hope you also practice architecture as a profession and/or have had to run your own company...
I understand what you are saying about building design evolving as society changes and understanding the larger and longer-term context of what you are building.
But note that architects talk about forces that influence design: site context, social/cultural context. The climate and sun orientation affect design. Traffic patterns affecting design, etc.
There are countless of forces influencing a design all at once. But I find architects always fail to address one important force - the economic force. And I think we have paid the price. (see the original post of this discussion - "Is 27k/yr way too low?")
Politics and society is greatly affected by trade and commerce.
If it weren't for trade between the venetians and the chinese, I think art and other ideas would have had a harder time to exchange.
The merchant as a profession has been around a long time and contributed to civilization - (both for good and for bad)
Also, many of the great pieces of art that we admire and study are in fact commisioned by wealthy people and in the name of religion (whom many devotees would freely give of thier substance to honor their gods/God).
Therefore, the art that was produced under such circumstances are an honest representation of the society and cultural context... they reflect the wealth of the politcal rule of that time; and that wealth shows itself in works of art.
Economics is a valid force, and we should include it in the architectural education as a factor that influences design, along with other forces that influence design as taught in school.
> sanguebom wrote:
LMAO at this discussion. It's pretty much the same "young and idealistic - change the world talk". The profession is what it is. Your life, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.
Sanguebom, do you have any suggestions to increase the pay in uour profession? Read the original post of this discussion ("Is 27k/yr way too low?") Is this an exception? Or is a decreasing wage a on-going trend and will continue to do so into total destruction of the value of our services? I'd like to hear your contribution to solutions.
> Uxbridge
See how that conversation easily flips?
I saw.
Does his scornful remarks *attempt* to solve the problem? No. I don't expect him to solve it, but at least engage in meaningful discussion towards a proposal - Some kind of intelligent analysis of the current situation...
Architects pride themselves on being problem solvers and being able to handle EXTREMELY LARGE chunks of information and process them into a useful solution.
I saw that as a lack of ability to process information.
A building is built brick-by-brick, bolt-by-bolt, channel-by-channel. For an architect to say, this problem is too big to handle and too complex to process is simply mental laziness. Such people are incapable of of doing good architecture in the first place. I'm sure there are many great and competent architects on archinect who would love a challange to tackle the economic issue as part of the design problem... and... a larger design problem - the design of our profession.
> olafdesignninja wrote:
Real estate? I see you are defending the faith of developers, of the importance of deciphering zoning law in a tight market, the ability to see potential in both square footage and marletable qualities of a sites potential?!?!??!
That's architecure? Conceptual estimation of space planning with eye candy imagery? you have to. go to school for that? Whut?
Well, I presented my reasons "why" in a rational manner - citing knowledge work happening at the real estate level as a reason.
Would knowledge work (as opposed to production work) happen at the constructor's level? I might not have thought out my argument correctly, so I'd like to hear your point of view, how else to increase the value of our services.
Maybe you have had bad experience with dealing with some clients/real estate developers. But we have had gone the same way for many years, I am only questioning, are we missing some important knowledge/information that will help our industry?
Btw olafdesignninja, do you run your own architecture company? How much do you pay your fresh grad employee looking for a job at your firm? I assume it is more than 27k/yr, but I'd like to know how successful you are at juggling the conflict between running a sustainable business while remaining true to art.
Because honestly, I can't reconcile it, unless I admit I am missing knowledge in the economics department in order to exploit it FOR THE BENEFIT of ART.
If architects are against the suggestions I have provided, I'd love to hear your ideas.
Any suggestions and possible ways to build a more sustainable architecture practice:
One that allows the art to flourish for the betterment of our environment, and at the same time improve the lives of our employees and practicing professionals...
(no 27k/yr [sub-minimum] wage for our fresh grads)
What are the ways we can change the trend of decreasing wage/decreasing contract sums.
An architect struggling to pay bills isn't living an enhanced-life, therefore he would be incapable of doing anything to enhance our environment (i.e. other people's lives), since he can't even enhance his own life. It is for a "noble" cause... if you think about it.
Architects are smart and intelligent people that can analyze complex problems, so I expect some kind of intelligent analysis and using those analysis to propose some solutions.
[Mockers - pls try to contribute constructively]
to olafdesignninja who wrote:
"Construction man construction."
Assume architects have total knowledge of construction and are responsible for all constrcution work instead of contracting them....
If architecture companies merges with construction companies into one practicing entity, what would happen?
Would this result in innovation in architecture? (better design/art?)
Or would it result in innovation in construction? (Cheaper and/or better ways of building?)
Could be both...
How does one address the unresolved issue of conflict with clients on design vs. commercial interest?
By having architecture and construction companies merged as one entity, architects still have to face the prospect of clients who demand a questionable change to a favorable design feature.
That is unless, 1) by merging construction with architecture, one leverages on the technical knowledge and the client's
ignorance by arguing that a bad design decision results in a technical problem and the client have no way of telling...
So client's HAVE to listen to us; and we can charge them for this expertise.
Or 2)
we make Real Estate companies irrelevant by not allowing them to be our clients. I.e. we are our own clients and dictate
how the spaces are design, built, marketed and sold to the people.
We pocket the percentage of the profits from these sales instead of going through the Real Estate companies.
What would be the implications and the result assuming
this is possible?
so let's do both K8...Real Estate is the prospective and Construction is the excecuted.
DBIA exists. DesignBuild fasted growiing form of project delivery.
AEC firms exists. Developers like John Portman (I, II, III, etc...) probably do it all
on many projects i've seen on the Real Estate Phase as you kind of classify it the marketing packet fee higher than the design fee, so i'm not totally against what you're proposing.
but their is a lot of risk on the Projspective end, since it's only prospectivce and realtors don't make any money until something is sold. this is pretty much what business development is like when dealing with developers anyway...10 free designs for 1 that happens!
to answer your other question, i'm lucky enough to be surviving this economy and when I have more work than I can handle I pay my regulars $40/hr and I would never pay anyone less than $25, eventhough I have worked for less.
all succesfful business architects i know treat their employees as humans (note)
"1) by merging construction with architecture, one leverages on the technical knowledge and the client's
ignorance by arguing that a bad design decision results in a technical problem and the client have no way of telling...
So client's HAVE to listen to us; and we can charge them for this expertise."
ummmm YESSS.
this how it works all the time to some degree or another anyway..
architect tells designer he can't do it because of code issues.
engineer telss engineer he can't do it because of the laws of physics.
designer tells both architect and engineer they can't do it because it looks like crap.
contractor says he can't do it because it cost to much.
i understand the whole checks and balances, but as controlled inspections in NYC become a third party game the client will have something to check their design build package with.
to your Real Estate point
the realtor says, don't do that it won't sell.
now if you're one entity that can answer all these questions that's great. this is what good owners and developers do anyway (they have a staff from all fields and pocket full of favorite inspection consultants).
how do you educate the real american urban builder - the developer? how do i become a develper without money?
you teach them how to be valuable to someone with money. There is money everywhere (granted, harder to get people to part with it these days, but there is no shortage of money).
But you will not convince anyone of anything by only being able to put some drawings together. You have to show that them that your vision will make money. This includes a quality design (yes, quality design is a better investment), sensible cost expectations and reasonable market expectations/strategy.
You are correct, larger developers have staff, but this isn't rocket science, it isn't hard, it just takes time to learn. If this was taught in school you'd know more than most before graduation.
This goes full circle to school. Those teaching theory can't get a job anywhere else, so they aren't going to change. Those that have the expertise to teach the skills above will, most likely, not be happy with a teacher's salary or a salary of an architect, so good luck getting them to teach. Now, I think we'll find more and more that are/were architects that would like to share their knowledge (think Segal).
what isn't being considered here is that most bad design is committed by people who think they are creating good design and necessary design.
One thing not being taken into consideration in this debate is the macroeconomics of the Global situation Americans find themselves. Frankly our purchasing power has eroded tremendously. You dont notice it in the food prices because we continually combat buying power with production enhancements. Same too with our computers and gadgets and cars. But where we do see it is in the large items like civil works and home construction. The same complaints I hear from architects i also hear from engineers and contractors, that they cant charge enough, they cant compete with low cost labor or competitors who dont pay their taxes. Think about it, a carpenter used to be a solid, upper middle class or at least middle class wage earner. In some of the more affluent areas of the country you can still find them. But moreso than not, you now see carpenters comidified into low wage immigrant framing crews, some legal some not almost all skirting some form of taxes or insurance. And yet, its still too costly for most people to build a house let alone hire a proper architect to design and build one. So I think until we make our currency more valuable, increase our purchasing power, their is no answer. One of the wisest things I've ever heard was that housing prices didnt go up in this last boom, the dollar just lost it's purchasing power.
there is a huge guilt trip in this profession concerning design ability. we are all taught to be designers, so somehow most architects who end up on the management side or the technical side have some kind of inferiority complex. i saw it all the time working at a large firm. i did a lot of front-end design, and it was always undermined by both the managers above me, who needed to put their stamp on the design of the project by changing things just enough to mess up any sort of clarity and effectiveness the actual designers had spent a long time working out, and by the detailers, who would whine and get all passive-aggressive any time they had to deviate from standard details. (and these were relatively conservative projects...the 'design' aims should be understood to be quite modest.)
all the non-designer architects hate the designers, which leads to a seriously counterintuitive collaboration where we shoot each other in the foot before we give anyone else a chance. i also see aspects of that in this discussion...every time design comes up, it's a hop, skip, and jump to a debate about the merits of 'high art'...there's A LOT of good and effective design you have to get through before you get to the high-art level...it's all on a scale.
what i think would go pretty far towards 'fixing' this profession is if architects would just learn to be ok with whatever role they find themselves to be good at, even if it's the business side or the technical side, without tearing down the entire basis of the profession, which historically has been in design. if you're ok with building utilitarian buildings and are frustrated at working for a design architect, go ahead and BE a contractor or a real estate developer. it'll be way better than being an architect who works for a contractor or a developer. stop trying to skew this profession towards that, and go ahead and just do those things. then, when you do need some design input, hire us!
apologies for not having the time to go through all the previous entries, i just skimmed, but in response to k8, i feel the same way about the 'greater responsibility' i wrote about...it's all on a scale, and you do as much as you can with each project. the economic side is important too, but i think you're giving it a bit too much leverage.
ps has anyone here ever worked in interior design? clients pay way more for that stuff than for architecture, because it's reflective of status and personal image. and people pay more for a room at the standard than at a chain hotel, and more for a diane von furstenberg dress than a generic one. there's an economic benefit to making generic versions of pretty much everything, but most people will agree that there's a premium to quality, style, innovation, and any of the other aspects of good design that is still relevant. an apple laptop costs how much more than a dell, and how many people do you know who own one? so rather than dismantling the design-centric aspect of the profession, how about we try to make it as relevant as it is in other areas?
To be perfectly honest, The Standard is a hotel chain that goes out of its way to engage guests and the general public.
It caters to "fun."
The serious focus on design both reinforces a split from standard hotel fair and that the hotel thinks seriously about culture.
Many well-designed hotels are a bore. They're stiff, they take themselves too seriously and they have a really perverse sense of "refinement."
The Standard on the other hand encourages guests to get rowdy, it caters to the neighborhoods around it [bingo night anyone?], it throws lots of lovely parties, it plays well with other businesses by striking up interest partnerships and it makes itself be an otherwise lovable entity. The bigger issue is that The Standard is playing Russian roulette with literally a hundred million dollars worth of liabilities.
Fun is both a risk and a liability.
That's an overall problem with architecture. Architecture lacks humor, fun and jest.
It has no personality. It is cold blooded, methodical and without any link to humanity other than holocaust memorials, "serious business" museums, hospitals and instruments of torture [prison, schools, "neighborhood centers."]
Despite the irrelevance of it today, some modes of historicist architecture still have fun in them.
Whether it be naked statues peeing all over each other, hidden messages in murals, collections of humorous botanical specimens used in decoration, fantastical buildings dedicated to outrageous deities or visual histories of bloody battles... they are all still fun!.
FUN!
Not fun! Even the dog is bored.
FUN
WAT?!
elinor: "management side or the technical side have some kind of inferiority complex. i saw it all the time working at a large firm."
You worked for a crappy firm then. My work experience (from both the design and technical sides) has been largely in productive, collaborative environments. Small percentage of firms have a fundamentally corrosive approach to architecture. Working for them or consulting for them sucked.
[i]"all the non-designer architects hate the designers"[/]
Your definition of design is very narrow. What you consider to be design account for 15% of architect's fee.
I suggest working for a smaller firm that does smaller projects where you get to do a little bit of everything.
Non-design architectin' can be just as fun.
an apple laptop costs how much more than a dell, and how many people do you know who own one?
I have been an Apple guy for many years. The OS is head and shoulders above what windows offers. Going from Windows ME at work to OS 10 at home was a real eye opener. Windows would crash often, sometimes multiple times per day. OS 10 crashed only a few times per year.
Yes I think Apple has beautiful designs, but I am willing to fork over the extra cash because Apple computers work better.
I came across a help wanted ad for a designer. When I opened it it was for a manufacturing draftsman. Still a quick compare & contrast might be interesting.
[url=http://www.mestek.com/careers.asp?jobID=94[/url]
Requirements:
One year minimum of CAD Certificate or Technical trade school
No prior work experience required
***$32,000-$42,500 annually****
There are multiple apartment listings for 2 bedroom units from $700-$900 indicating a cost of living significantly lower than NYC.
Im not sure what tech school costs these days but let's say our draftsman has 20% - 25% of the debt that our BS arch person does.
Taking the cost of living and debt into account the difference is staggering. I realize that not all jobs pay the same and there are other rewards besides financial compensation. Based on this ad though $27k is ridiculous after a 4 year eduction? To me the answer is F yeah it is. Why?
1. No offense to Cheesus, but perhaps they need a lot of teaching to be productive. The employer sees someone with future potential and is willing to work with them, possibly paying them more than they are currently worth, while training them
2. It is a low ball offer from a firm taking advantage of the economy.
3. It is an offer from a firm that runs it's business poorly and therefore can not make a good offer.
4. The education we receive is not working. We are not being taught the things we need to secure gainful employment.
I do not remember seeing any response if this offer is outside the norm or what recent graduates can expect going forward. Unfortunately receiving any offer might be unusual right now :(
Should we assassinate Peter Zumthor?
Foucault would say that all truth claims are power plays [Which, in itself, is actually a truth claim.].
But we should counter that by upholding that truth claims will exist regardless of how we respond and what truly matters is not that there is or is not a truth claim, but what is in the content of the claim.
I would agree that the profession and the academy [and especially in the States] have divorced themselves.
But I would also say that what you're ultimately espousing is yet another theory. Though a slightly backwards one.
The architect, as currently imagined, serves as the client's voice, and more importantly perhaps the only voice the constituency has. By constituency I reference the public, who may use the building but not have a hand in its making.
To respond to the OP: I believe you have the right intent, but your focus is misguided. Architects should not align themselves with developers. Who seek to make a profit and then move on. Architects should realign themselves with builders. IE General and Sub Contractors. The GC actually has a vested interest in providing a decent product, as his or her name lives or dies on the product. The trouble is that clients and therefore [and only therefore] GC's don't always see the benefits of offering good design and quality construction at the outset. It's the age old capital versus life cycle cost.
The trick, then, is to marry the GC with the architect and produce a construct that cares about the quality of the building.
Or, essentially, to augment the theory to be more concerned with real world constructs.
As status quo plays out: green grass, grey concrete, black asphalt and white walls are the backdrop upon which singular prolific works of architecture play out. The Maxxi can only exist because it has the backdrop of a banal Roman suburb to play against.
What would happen if green grass, grey concrete, black asphalt and white walls became the tools with which we focus on and design?
Why would a GC have more of a vested interest in the final product than a developer? Some developers suck, some are horrible and cut corners left and right, but this is also true of architects and contractors.
A developer is also building a reputation and a portfolio. I'd argue that a developer also has a vested interest in quality design, as that equals money in their pocket - better design will sell quicker. A GC has little, if any, concern with the design. They make their money one way or another. This is also true of the architect. The developer is the one that takes the risk and is held accountable to balancing the economics with the quality and design.
Not that this is always the case, just that people on here tend to make a broad sweeping statement that developers are 'bad' and architects are 'good'. It is a team effort.
Well, perhaps this is a question based on personal experience, and is inherently subjective.
In my experience a GC is more concerned with building a portfolio because they are much closer to the design and construction process. Their product is ultimately physical, not merely financial. Whereas a developer is somewhat more removed and cares much more for the immediate bottom line than for something like life cycle costs.
Also, the developer is being judged by different criteria, namely how well the project performs economically. I guarantee no developer wants to work with Zumthor.
However, the GC is situated in a weird construct along with the architect whereas if he or she screws up, they might not make it to the next project. So his or her value is moreso judged on the physical performance of the building, not merely the economical.
For example, building an economically successful stripmall might be considered a success for a developer, but I doubt Tishman or McCarthey or Turner would ever include a strip mall on their website.
As I said, this is slightly nebulous, feel free to disagree.
Oh no, I didn't mean that all developers are bad, nor that all architects are 'good'. Just look at Dick Busche. It is a team effort, and the sooner architects and GCs and developers all realize we're ultimately on the same side the better it is likely to be.
I agree with all that, and it does depend on building type, location, etc.
I do wish there was more emphasis put on this team approach in school. I tried to do some of it in grad school, but without support from faculty it is just too much work in too short of time.
A shame grads know who derrida is and not anything about cost and profits. As intellectually stimulating as his writings may be (or have been), they do not a building make...or architecture of any sort, for that matter.
jplourde - actually, zumthor's worked with several developers over his career: the housing in spittlehof; a stalled housing plan in helsinki, a current project converting a small warehouse district to mixed use; and his house for allain debotton's development of small, architect designed rental homes across england.
in the end, quality has to be equally defined and embraced by everyone in the process, from the creative visionary down to the tile layer. it's why so many projects with great intentions fall short of their initial promise.
GREED!
See my previous quote for a constructive response.
Speculating and talking this and that without concrete courses of action while massaging your ego are wastes of time. If you believe so strongly that your life revolves around architecture and without it you cease to exist than I strongly suggest you take your ideas and concerns to the appropriate parties and fight for it like your damn life depends on it. You owe it to yourself.
“To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.” – Oscar Wilde
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.