Frances Anderton recently moderated a discussion with Michael Maltzen, the topic of which was whether "Good Design Could Change Lives". The premise was how "Good Design" applied to typically underserved areas and uses could be uplifting to those served by the project.
It reminded me of an episode early in my career. The firm I was working for had a client who was developing an affordable housing complex for poor single mothers and their children. The developer, a non-profit, wanted to engage the future residents in the design process, so a series of workshops were conducted and families were invited to bring images of "home" and present them to us (the architects) as we presented our ideas to them. The idea was to have a discussion and thereby engender some feeling of empowerment to the future residents.
The form of the complex was a low density, townhouse arrangement with garden courtyards and separation of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Without exception, the family's images of home and house were traditional; white picket fences, all gingerbread and pastel shutters. Our modern, rational schemes were politely yet firmly critiqued as "cold", "factory-like", and worst of all "kind of like a warehouse". And perhaps they were, although our images of classic modern European precedents were also roundly criticized along the same lines. The consolation was that the plans for the units were admired as being efficient and spacious.
Now, I won’t claim that our schemes were on a par with a Maltzen, but I would guess that his aesthetic approach would be met with similar polite dismissal, given all that was discussed at the time.
As Architects we all have pretty sophisticated ideas about what “good design” is. What happens when that doesn’t square with users who may not be direct clients, as in the case of the single mothers? Is it possible that we may, in some cases, be imposing an aesthetic sensibility where it may not be appreciated? Is our idea of good design the only good design there is? Particularly when there is an underserved community in dire need of safe, clean housing, is it our job to provide a crash course in Contemporary Architecture at the same time?
The project that was built had a decidedly traditional atmosphere, not awful, but competent and pleasant given the budget. And the families loved it and appreciated the attention they were given in the process.
At least you accommodated your client. That would seem respectful of their tastes and their dreams and lifestyles and budgets.
What's curious is that you seem apologetic about it.
One reason, I think, is that the AIA's 'great artist' model doesn't seem to include architects who serve their clients. The client is seen as the source of money, and is a patron of the architect's artistic vision. It's the client's job to pay to build the architect's vision, not for the architect to support the client's vision.
The problem you're facing is that an entire generation of architects has been trained that they're artists. That it's all about them.
Architects look at pictures and decide, "This is a good design" or "This is not a good design", based on artistic content. Based on their own personal tastes and biases.
This is the model that's been promoted and advanced by the Thom Maynes and Frank Gehrys and Eric Mosses of the architecture world, and they are reigning heavyweight champs. No one will challenge them. No one. If you do, other architects will come to their defense and insult you, berate you, humiliate you.
Screw the clients. "You are a bad architect because your work looks like crap."
Architects who accommodate their clients are prostitutes and whores. Lacking talent, artistic skills and integrity.
I think the word 'starchitect' is a great word. Concise. Efficient. Descriptive. But Gehry seems to think that a journalist who uses the word has no talent.
So at the top, there is a disdain and disrespect for people who are somehow 'less talented' - because they don't respect whatever talents the other guy has - and the attitude trickles down. "Does it look cool?" is all that matters.
i think you have to separate the 'good design' issue from the stylistic issue, but doing this is difficult and complicated.
what architects think of as 'good design' ideally incorporates many simultaneous lines of inquiry...i.e. attention to current design technologies, building technologies, new materials, aesthetics that are reflective of other current innovations, ideas about social and urban systems, etc. there is a tendency for architects to lean toward the 'modern' or 'contemporary' aesthetic because it makes the most sense from all these angles. ('traditional'-looking buildings built today generally use artificial approximations of traditional building technologies, for example.)
theoretically, any architect would agree that 'good design' is possible in any stylistic context. in reality, though, other concerns get in the way of this. a brick building using traditional masonry techniques is in most cases prohibitively expensive, etc. etc.
the stylistic issue has more to do with cultural biases than anything else. in this country, the 'traditional' aesthetic is tied to all sorts of issues of stability, prosperity, continuity with history, patriotism, etc. these are the qualities most clients are probably looking for, but it's not necessarily the case in other countries (parts of europe, japan...) developing countries often have more contemporary stylistic preferences out of a cultural desire to be considered modern, cutting-edge, and on par with developed countries.
i once went to the czech republic and was impressed with czech modernist buildings from the interwar period...back then the czech republic was a newly independent country with a strong industrial base. so they built all these white/glass buidings to showcase their forward-thinking identity. the interesting thing was that they built them smack in the middle of old medieval city centers without batting an eye. none of this 'contextual' stuff...and they look great. this is one of the few examples i know of where the architectural fashion was completely in line with the cultural attitude of the moment.
Aldo, perhaps the only moral of your story is that poor single moms are just as bad at recognizing good architecture as they are at finding a trustworthy mate :)
If there is one thing architects consistently do really well is designing contemporary residential dwellings (money permitting). Features used in modern homes are highly rational and usually sell themselves (flexibility, light, function, sustainability, etc...). It takes a willful rejection of reason to dismiss them. Or apple-pie-in-the-windowsill escapism (that may be the case with these single moms).
Perhaps your office did a poor job of explaining the benefits of a modern home? Perhaps it was an un-winnable discussion. Two days ago I tried explaining benefits of a robust bicycle infrastructure to a suburban person who was about to retire. They saw bicycles as encroachment on their (perceived) personal freedoms, and there was little I could do to persuade them otherwise. "Good design" argument goes much further than Architecture.
Perhaps it's a case of supply and demand. You have a bucketful of good design, but who's buying?
still thinking about this...i think there are two separate issues to which architects should be sensitive, 'good design' and the 'image' of the building. a single mom. for example, is probably leery of anything that looks institutional, since that brings up a lot of bad associations. so an architect who wants to design a contemporary house for her should try to avoid materials/details that have that look. an apartment building for retirees shouldn't look like a hospital, an inner-city high school shouldn't look like a prison, etc...a little sensitivity would probably go a long way to solving some of these problems without requiring architects to pander to fake stylistic flourishes (i hope).
The poor want to be traditional and ordinary because their dream is to belong to the majority.
The rich want to be extra-ordinary because they want to be different from the common or the poor.
Common architects use the mind set of the fisrt group, "Star-architects" use the mind set of the second group.
It's not all about talent, but just about mode of mind-sets.
Truly talented people can create good designs and work with either of both. And sometimes working with the poor requires more talents.
Style equals bullshit. Bullshit is that group of myths and fantasies everyone somehow seems to agree on. Architecture Academia (mostly) have managed to agree with Starchirtect bullshit, a bullshit not in alignment with the worlds bullshit.
Most Starchitects are a bunch of communists protesting on wall street - cute and irrelevant. ENR might talk about them here and there about their cute little projects, while AECOM takes over the world. This way a fictional CEO of a fictional AECOM can see who is famous, check what libeskind and gehry are wearing and bullshit the head of some architecture school about aesthetics and fine tastes as the school names a building after the CEO. A
Good design can completely exclude style. Matter of fact if you really do good design and are talented you will take the clients dreams, the environments needs, the building codes, the budget, the zoning, the available local craftmanship and turn the architecture into its own thing. The language will be a result of important factors and a good architect will arrange them beautifully.
Or you could just learn how to bull shit with the bull shitters and sleep around with media to get your bull shit out there and be suprised when some student at a lecture stumps you with a real querstion.
I´d like to get back to Aldorossi´s post. On one hand architects will often propose an appropriate housing solution that may not fit within the white picket fences image that many Americans are such fans of. Yet with a magnifying glass many educated designers will recognize the quality in the proposed scheme. Yet the challenge is convincing the jury that the design is worth the investment. You can't blame them for rejecting something that looks ‘factory-like.’ At the same time architects have a little more to offer than white picket fences and traditional forms found in suburban America. I think this gets down to the renders and elevations that are shown in these meetings. It is surprising how sensitive to image people are. We tend to stick with the aesthetics we learned in school, in the office, or individually. The mistake is to always gravitate to something that looks stylistically 'architectural' and very much in line with the digital fashions of current books and magazines, published for the consumption of fellow architects. So this brings me back to the phrase, 'know your audience' because I am of the opinion that you can get many things approved with a picket fence jury if you just find the right way to present and represent it.
Many of the professors of my masters program (ETSAMadrid) talk about this. Obsessed with the topic of winning competitions, they cite various trends where certain elements, colors, materials etc have been successful in winning over a jury. They have it down to a science and I think it’s an aspect of jury/client relations that we should devote more attention to.
Maltzan is on his way to becoming a starchitect, and I have to qualms about that. His office has received a lot of good press for the rainbow housing complex on skid row in LA. I think it’s great that the press celebrates projects that benefit the undeserving. It’s a client-base that we should focus on in this new century if we want our profession of Architecture to stay relevant. And if this type of work eventually redefines what a starchitect is, all the better for the rest of us.
Dec 30, 10 8:36 am ·
·
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.
Good Design - Change Lives
Frances Anderton recently moderated a discussion with Michael Maltzen, the topic of which was whether "Good Design Could Change Lives". The premise was how "Good Design" applied to typically underserved areas and uses could be uplifting to those served by the project.
It reminded me of an episode early in my career. The firm I was working for had a client who was developing an affordable housing complex for poor single mothers and their children. The developer, a non-profit, wanted to engage the future residents in the design process, so a series of workshops were conducted and families were invited to bring images of "home" and present them to us (the architects) as we presented our ideas to them. The idea was to have a discussion and thereby engender some feeling of empowerment to the future residents.
The form of the complex was a low density, townhouse arrangement with garden courtyards and separation of vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Without exception, the family's images of home and house were traditional; white picket fences, all gingerbread and pastel shutters. Our modern, rational schemes were politely yet firmly critiqued as "cold", "factory-like", and worst of all "kind of like a warehouse". And perhaps they were, although our images of classic modern European precedents were also roundly criticized along the same lines. The consolation was that the plans for the units were admired as being efficient and spacious.
Now, I won’t claim that our schemes were on a par with a Maltzen, but I would guess that his aesthetic approach would be met with similar polite dismissal, given all that was discussed at the time.
As Architects we all have pretty sophisticated ideas about what “good design” is. What happens when that doesn’t square with users who may not be direct clients, as in the case of the single mothers? Is it possible that we may, in some cases, be imposing an aesthetic sensibility where it may not be appreciated? Is our idea of good design the only good design there is? Particularly when there is an underserved community in dire need of safe, clean housing, is it our job to provide a crash course in Contemporary Architecture at the same time?
The project that was built had a decidedly traditional atmosphere, not awful, but competent and pleasant given the budget. And the families loved it and appreciated the attention they were given in the process.
At least you accommodated your client. That would seem respectful of their tastes and their dreams and lifestyles and budgets.
What's curious is that you seem apologetic about it.
One reason, I think, is that the AIA's 'great artist' model doesn't seem to include architects who serve their clients. The client is seen as the source of money, and is a patron of the architect's artistic vision. It's the client's job to pay to build the architect's vision, not for the architect to support the client's vision.
The problem you're facing is that an entire generation of architects has been trained that they're artists. That it's all about them.
Architects look at pictures and decide, "This is a good design" or "This is not a good design", based on artistic content. Based on their own personal tastes and biases.
This is the model that's been promoted and advanced by the Thom Maynes and Frank Gehrys and Eric Mosses of the architecture world, and they are reigning heavyweight champs. No one will challenge them. No one. If you do, other architects will come to their defense and insult you, berate you, humiliate you.
Screw the clients. "You are a bad architect because your work looks like crap."
Architects who accommodate their clients are prostitutes and whores. Lacking talent, artistic skills and integrity.
I think the word 'starchitect' is a great word. Concise. Efficient. Descriptive. But Gehry seems to think that a journalist who uses the word has no talent.
So at the top, there is a disdain and disrespect for people who are somehow 'less talented' - because they don't respect whatever talents the other guy has - and the attitude trickles down. "Does it look cool?" is all that matters.
That seems to be the attitude here as well.
i think you have to separate the 'good design' issue from the stylistic issue, but doing this is difficult and complicated.
what architects think of as 'good design' ideally incorporates many simultaneous lines of inquiry...i.e. attention to current design technologies, building technologies, new materials, aesthetics that are reflective of other current innovations, ideas about social and urban systems, etc. there is a tendency for architects to lean toward the 'modern' or 'contemporary' aesthetic because it makes the most sense from all these angles. ('traditional'-looking buildings built today generally use artificial approximations of traditional building technologies, for example.)
theoretically, any architect would agree that 'good design' is possible in any stylistic context. in reality, though, other concerns get in the way of this. a brick building using traditional masonry techniques is in most cases prohibitively expensive, etc. etc.
the stylistic issue has more to do with cultural biases than anything else. in this country, the 'traditional' aesthetic is tied to all sorts of issues of stability, prosperity, continuity with history, patriotism, etc. these are the qualities most clients are probably looking for, but it's not necessarily the case in other countries (parts of europe, japan...) developing countries often have more contemporary stylistic preferences out of a cultural desire to be considered modern, cutting-edge, and on par with developed countries.
i once went to the czech republic and was impressed with czech modernist buildings from the interwar period...back then the czech republic was a newly independent country with a strong industrial base. so they built all these white/glass buidings to showcase their forward-thinking identity. the interesting thing was that they built them smack in the middle of old medieval city centers without batting an eye. none of this 'contextual' stuff...and they look great. this is one of the few examples i know of where the architectural fashion was completely in line with the cultural attitude of the moment.
Aldo, perhaps the only moral of your story is that poor single moms are just as bad at recognizing good architecture as they are at finding a trustworthy mate :)
If there is one thing architects consistently do really well is designing contemporary residential dwellings (money permitting). Features used in modern homes are highly rational and usually sell themselves (flexibility, light, function, sustainability, etc...). It takes a willful rejection of reason to dismiss them. Or apple-pie-in-the-windowsill escapism (that may be the case with these single moms).
Perhaps your office did a poor job of explaining the benefits of a modern home? Perhaps it was an un-winnable discussion. Two days ago I tried explaining benefits of a robust bicycle infrastructure to a suburban person who was about to retire. They saw bicycles as encroachment on their (perceived) personal freedoms, and there was little I could do to persuade them otherwise. "Good design" argument goes much further than Architecture.
Perhaps it's a case of supply and demand. You have a bucketful of good design, but who's buying?
ps. eje, you sound constipated.
Oh, and I second elinor's eloquent response.
thanks, rs!
still thinking about this...i think there are two separate issues to which architects should be sensitive, 'good design' and the 'image' of the building. a single mom. for example, is probably leery of anything that looks institutional, since that brings up a lot of bad associations. so an architect who wants to design a contemporary house for her should try to avoid materials/details that have that look. an apartment building for retirees shouldn't look like a hospital, an inner-city high school shouldn't look like a prison, etc...a little sensitivity would probably go a long way to solving some of these problems without requiring architects to pander to fake stylistic flourishes (i hope).
The poor want to be traditional and ordinary because their dream is to belong to the majority.
The rich want to be extra-ordinary because they want to be different from the common or the poor.
Common architects use the mind set of the fisrt group, "Star-architects" use the mind set of the second group.
It's not all about talent, but just about mode of mind-sets.
Truly talented people can create good designs and work with either of both. And sometimes working with the poor requires more talents.
To be clear, I didn't mean "Common architects" less talented architects but most of architects.
Style equals bullshit. Bullshit is that group of myths and fantasies everyone somehow seems to agree on. Architecture Academia (mostly) have managed to agree with Starchirtect bullshit, a bullshit not in alignment with the worlds bullshit.
Most Starchitects are a bunch of communists protesting on wall street - cute and irrelevant. ENR might talk about them here and there about their cute little projects, while AECOM takes over the world. This way a fictional CEO of a fictional AECOM can see who is famous, check what libeskind and gehry are wearing and bullshit the head of some architecture school about aesthetics and fine tastes as the school names a building after the CEO. A
Good design can completely exclude style. Matter of fact if you really do good design and are talented you will take the clients dreams, the environments needs, the building codes, the budget, the zoning, the available local craftmanship and turn the architecture into its own thing. The language will be a result of important factors and a good architect will arrange them beautifully.
Or you could just learn how to bull shit with the bull shitters and sleep around with media to get your bull shit out there and be suprised when some student at a lecture stumps you with a real querstion.
I´d like to get back to Aldorossi´s post. On one hand architects will often propose an appropriate housing solution that may not fit within the white picket fences image that many Americans are such fans of. Yet with a magnifying glass many educated designers will recognize the quality in the proposed scheme. Yet the challenge is convincing the jury that the design is worth the investment. You can't blame them for rejecting something that looks ‘factory-like.’ At the same time architects have a little more to offer than white picket fences and traditional forms found in suburban America. I think this gets down to the renders and elevations that are shown in these meetings. It is surprising how sensitive to image people are. We tend to stick with the aesthetics we learned in school, in the office, or individually. The mistake is to always gravitate to something that looks stylistically 'architectural' and very much in line with the digital fashions of current books and magazines, published for the consumption of fellow architects. So this brings me back to the phrase, 'know your audience' because I am of the opinion that you can get many things approved with a picket fence jury if you just find the right way to present and represent it.
Many of the professors of my masters program (ETSAMadrid) talk about this. Obsessed with the topic of winning competitions, they cite various trends where certain elements, colors, materials etc have been successful in winning over a jury. They have it down to a science and I think it’s an aspect of jury/client relations that we should devote more attention to.
Maltzan is on his way to becoming a starchitect, and I have to qualms about that. His office has received a lot of good press for the rainbow housing complex on skid row in LA. I think it’s great that the press celebrates projects that benefit the undeserving. It’s a client-base that we should focus on in this new century if we want our profession of Architecture to stay relevant. And if this type of work eventually redefines what a starchitect is, all the better for the rest of us.
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.