I know that a lot of people already hate me because I have this economical idea. Of course, I understand that all architects should not do this idea because everybody thinks different. But if architects were developers, they would have more freedom to do what they want. Therefore, I’d want to know if architects would have more innovation being also developers. I am just giving you an opinion. Nothing else, don’t take badly. I am not saying that architects should do this. Thank you very much for your attention.
Development is a risk-taking venture by its very nature, since, to succeed financially, the product (project) being developed needs to attract consumers (buyers/tenants) who have other products (projects) also competing for their money. This tends to keep risk-averse developers within a certain range of popular/common tastes likely to appeal to a greater number of consumers, and away from edgier tastes that are likely to appeal to fewer consumers.
There are certainly exceptions to this tendency. Some innovative developers specifically seek out the less-typical consumers who want edgier accommodations. But they take a greater financial risk in doing so, because 1) the amount of demand for less-conventional projects is smaller and may already be exhausted in a given market area, and 2) their particular edgy project may not appeal to that consumer segment, and go unoccupied.
My hunch is that, with their own money on the table, architects would probably behave like other developers, in the aggregate. A greater number would be risk-averse, and would design and develop more conventional projects. A smaller number would take the chance to be more creative, and hope to connect with the smaller segment of consumers looking for unusual accommodations.
So, my sense is no: on the average, architects would not innovate more if they were also developers with a financial stake in projects.
I knew that some people would answer because people on this website are selfish, and they just care about themselves. I am not saying that this idea is something good. Really, people here are so insolent and ignorant. They don't understand what I am saying. I just want to know if architects were developers. Would architecture be more innovated? I am not saying that it will be. I just want to know your answer saying "YES or NO". I don't want that stupid answer saying "Here we go again". People on this website answer me like that because a lot of them do not know how to answer me these question. Since, my questions are too deep and complicated for people here. Thus, I should ask more professionals who knows what they are answering because people on this website think that everything is a joke. Answer me a question. Give me the reasons why architects were affected by the recession. If you know everything. If their economy is too good as you said. Why are they suffering right now? Why don't they have many jobs? Of course, I can see that architects don't need any economical solution and idea which can help them because the money just comes to them.
I worked for an architect who expanded into development, and in my experience the answer is easily no. The dollar ALWAYS wins out over design, especially when it's your own.
I guess they probably would innovate more. But is innovation an important component in a successful development? Hardly. I think that's why you are frustrated, because you want innovation to equal success, but it doesn't. More often than not, going with the tried and true will lead to success.
But my question is: How do fashion designers get rich with innovated clothes? They are designers too as architects. Of course, I understand that it is hard to develop that idea. For example: If an architect as Frank Gehry would sell his buildings as his products. Wouldn't he have more freedom to do what he wants? I just want to know "YES or NO".
Piero, you already asked this exact same question a while back. Even if you take away the language barrier, you may just not be as bright as you think you are. Kind of dumb-witted actually.
So listen dimwit, there are plenty of architects working as developers. Always have been. For many reasons they tend to outsource design services.
A better question would be why don't developers provide design services.
I think that your question is pretty good. It is true. But I think that it is hard because a lot of real estate developers do not care about architecture too much. Some do, and some don't. I read an article called "More architects don developers' hats". I think that a lot of people already read it. In this article, some architects said that many real estate developers do not care if they are selling good architecture or not. I also read this article on the website of Architect Magazine which is called " Do It Yourself" which is also an article related to economy but I don't know what you think about. This is the link if want to read it. http://www.architectmagazine.com/design-build/do-it-yourself.aspx
What I mean with that is that the architect wouldn't need a client's opinion to design a building. Not only to considering your own desires, but of course the other architects' desires too. Architecture firm wouldn't need anyone else to design. Of course when there are competitions or something like that is different. I am not saying that architects have to be like that for everything because they would need clients' opinions to realize some buildings such as Museum, airports, governmental buildings, companies' buildings, etc. Sorry if I disrespected you saying that you have to answer with YES or NO.
longer answer: Architects can be innovative in design tasks simply because the risk is not theirs. Regardless of the actual succes of the building, you tend to get paid your fees - and the risk is on someone else. If your own money is involved, you are basically your own guard-dog: you are the one checking the economic feasibility of your own scheme. In such an instance, either one is prone to suffer: either you tone down the innovative design, or you tone down the expected economical revenue.
There is a reason that most design services offered by developers are boring, bland and unadventurous: there's less risk involved in the design, they know what to expect, and the economics are clear and simple. The same would go the other way around: I guess that an architect in general has to be a bit more conservative if he/she is the investor.
The obvious exception to this rule are the architects that are desperately convinced of their own designs. Either that works out well, or they go bankrupt within a project or two...
Your Gehry-example isn't quite just, either: Gehry is already a brand in itself: there's no need for him to establish himself as one. At the same time, his "brandishness" disallows him to be actually innovative. His design service is the brand - clients expect to get a "Gehry" from him, nothing else. For the young/small/innovative studio, things are different: they are not well-known enough to sell themselves (or their self-developed buildings) like a brand. Just like a Armani outlet store only starts making sense because Armani is actually famous. An outlet store for the-unknown-designer-who-works-out-of-her-own-bedroom-and-has-never-gone-public is just as nosensical.
The real question here is "what kind of innovation" ?
Over the course of my career, I've been in -- and out of -- the development business several times. Nothing -- and I mean NOTHING -- focuses the mind like putting your own money, and your own credit rating, at risk in order to accomplish a project as an Owner.
When you own the project personally, that "focused mind" I mention above gravitates immediately to several key questions: a) what will the project REALLY cost? b) how am I going to lease the space or find enough buyers? and c) how am I going to convince the bank to loan me enough money to make the project happen?
While we - as architects - tend to abuse the reputation of developers as 'penny-pinching, greedy bastards who don't care a whit about design' the reality is that the three questions above tend to dominate every development project and tend to govern – or, at least, greatly influence -- a very high proportion of decisions that get made.
Now - back to innovation. Because of what must be done on a project to make it happen, "design innovation" -- of the sort we architects like to discuss -- does tend to take a back seat because it makes costs hard to predict, can make schedules hard to predict, and is hard to quantify with respect to increased sales appeal or marketability of the property.
In short, the kind of "design innovation" we find appealing generally tends to add risk to the project - it adds marketing risk; it adds cost risk; and it adds financial risk. The developer's primary objective is to REDUCE risk -- if not eliminate it altogether.
That's not to say that there’s not opportunity for innovation -- however, it's not the kind of innovation that we design architects like to discuss.
The kinds of innovation I mean here are a) how can I make the site plan more efficient so land development costs won't be so high and so I can locate more units or square footage on the site; or b) how can I redesign this curtain wall so it will still function correctly but cost 8% less; or c) how can I reconfigure the floor plate to increase the leasable area by 2%.
There's more than enough opportunity for that sort of innovation -- but, as we all know, that's not what gets us on the cover of Arch. Record.
Of course, I understand all your points. They are really good. But my last question is: Why can’t architects designs incredible buildings and risk selling those buildings as real estate developers? This is my last question because it is impossible to agree with everybody in this world. Everybody thinks differently. Maybe, you don’t like the idea, but I like the idea. Perhaps, you think that it is impossible but I can think that I can make a beautiful and great design of a building and sell the building. I don’t want more repercussions and problems with the people on this website. I asked 2 days ago a question about architecture, not business and people haven’t answered me, but when I ask this kind of question about business people answer me. So I don’t understand how people say that they don’t like these economical questions. And my question about architecture was: What kind of architecture is more impressive or better Deconstructivism or high tech?
Quizzical's example nicely illustrates the general point I argue above: for the one writing the checks, "innovation" is risky, where "proven" is comforting.
"What kind of architecture is more impressive or better Deconstructivism or high tech?"
There's a reason people don't respond to a question like that. Because... wait for it...
...
... it doesn't deserve a legitimate response.
You can be new to architecture and ask simple questions and people will be happy to answer. Questions like, what is deconstructivism? (nothing really - it began with a MOMA show curated by Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley in 1988, who chose that word & theme to tie the various projects of the new generation of architects together. these architects viewed a latent discord in 'modern architecture' and constructed projects that critiqued modernist architecture within its own vocabulary - separating itself from the post-modern architects at the time who were trapped in a dialogue with history and context.)
Or, what is hi-tech? (an evolution of Archigram ideas, mostly advanced by Richard Rogers and Norman Foster..)
But to ask which is 'better' is to not understand what the central ideas of architecture are. There's good 'deconstructivist' projects and bad 'hi-tech' projects & vice versa. In the end, most people usually reduce these issue into stylistic generalizations - which is unfortunate because it ignores the quality of the architecture and space. To ask which is better is to dilute architectural discourse into a realm of hot or not.
Piero, pretend you run a business, a little store or something, and you need to lease a space. The really cool space designed by Pieroarguello Fabulous Architects is $3800 a month, and the one that isn't perfect but meets all your needs, and it is $2400 a month. Your monthly revenues average $8600 a month, but have been as low as $5000 in the off season. Keeping in mind that you still have to pay other expenses like taxes, salaries, cost of goods, etc, which space do you lease? How much is a cool and innovative space worth? Is it worth running your business into the ground?
(btw, it is ok to be young and optimistic, even naive, but you are going to have a rough life if you cannot learn from what people who know what they are talking about are trying to telling you. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.)
But Innovation is something that almost every company does to have clients because if Apple wouldn't innovate the world with their products, they wouldn't be a big company. I don't think so that all architects who will want to become a real estate developers , and also practice building design don't innovate architecture because we cannot generalize that all architects(as developers) like that idea( maintaining a simple architecture without innovation). Of course, some architects (as developers) would want to maintain traditional architecture. Really, you will never find an answer for all these questions because everybody thinks differently (As I have repeated many times). I know that a lot of people would disagree with me.
Because you don't like that idea. You will never talk goodly about it, and the same for many people here. Even for myself. And you know something the new talents are the one who innovate the world. Beccabec, you are conservative person because you don't like to do something else to get more. And, a lot of people are like that. So, I can't argue about it.
Of course, I understand that. I know that innovation is risky, but I have the mentality that You have to risk to win ( it is like playing poker. If you don't risk, you don't win). Of course, you have to think about what you are going to do.
"Innovation" is really only — to use a phrase outside of its meaning — object-oriented. Architecture is a collection of objects. It's far too complex to innovate on such a scale. You can compartmentalize the act and practice of architecture into definable independent parts. This is essentially what project management and scheduling does.
Developers, on one hand, pay more attention to these details than architects might because they encounter a series of costs and value judgments outside the realm of architecture. They not only have to worry about the cost of the design choices but also their operation, maintenance and whether or not those design choices have true added value.
Where would innovation in architecture happen? Primarily in office management and methods of production. Architects communicate for a living through drawings, diagrams, models and people and this communication is always changing and evolving.
Fashion designers don't get rich easily. There is an enormous gap between somebody like YSL and lesser known designers, let alone people *working for* lesser known designers.
"Of course, you don't get easily rich in any business but you never find an architecture firm as rich as a fashion designer's brand such as Armani."
Basically, because there's a subtle difference between selling fashion (and being able to branch off in more big market orientated goods (shirts, suits, sunglasses, parfums etcetera). Whereas architecture is still a one-off product with a high investment for the client.
But, to render your point fairly useless: what's the net worth of Armani? I read about 2,8 billion USD. What about Norman Foster, for instance? according to this source, http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=1527 , he's worth about 1 billion USD. To me, that's the difference between "insanely wealthy" and "absurdly wealthy"...
Jul 20, 11 4:01 pm ·
·
piero,
You don't seem to understand. Architects like 99% of the population cares about themselves and their money. Everything is a business. You don't go around throwing money at anything risky. Have you ever heard of ROI (Return On Investment). Land Development is a business. They are often already in the risk as it is since developing land is already speculative in nature. Most developers already wants to have at least 50% of the potential tenants / buyers signed onto the idea. Often, it doesn't all come out of the developer's pocket.
Another key player in development business is the banks/lenders. Even if an architect also becomes developer, it won't be any different. The same realities also matters. In addition to that, when you are being your own client or developing to a hypothetical client, it doesn't have the depth that a real client has and in turn designs tends to be stale because you are dealing with a stale hypothetical client of broad general chacterization but not the nuance a real client brings to a project that gives incredible depth and synergy to a project. (If you pick good clients)
Another issue that you forget about or is ignorant of is the potential COI issue. Besides that, when people who make $100/hr or more in this business of design and in cases, development (either as a developer or work with developers that are clients), you just might want to listen.
You seem to be just a student either barely out of high school or something. You are not ready to be an architect or a building designer. You lack materity and lack business acumen that is needed to some extent.
People give you real world advice based on real world considerations because they are familiar with the reality. If the world is like the pie in the sky idealism that you are hoping for, wouldn't you be thinking it would already be happening accordingly. But guess what, the world isn't the idealistic dream that you hope for. It never was, never is and never will be. Why? There are other people with their own ideas competing. You have other people competing amonst each other for money lending to anything else.
This is because only so many can be making middle class or upper class income. The rest are somewhere less. This is a selfish world for selfish ambitions. Didn't you know that we're humans not angels. We're not saints either. So until you grow up and get a grip with reality, and perhaps think the answers out for yourself - you are not going to be ready as an architect or building designer running a serious and real business. You need supervision and control.
Others have probably said the same thing. If you do understand, maybe you might want to learn a little bit of respecting of others. Also consider your questions you ask.
I can only base my assessment of you on what I see. Granted, I haven't gone through all the responses following the first few. In any regard, people are entitle to interpret things differently than you intended. If they do, then it is indicitive that you didn't make your intended meaning clear.
Since you ask a question based on the real world, expect it with real world considerations. People are by and large are interested in #1 themselves, family & their financial condition and #2 others.
Welcome to the human world.
Jul 20, 11 10:04 pm ·
·
Pierro,
There are only so many successful fashion designers. Alot of them fail. Why do any of them get successful in that manner, they seek high profile clients, they seek to design attires for people like Lady Gaga, Maddona and others, they do avante-garde to develop controversy and media attention but use stars to validate. However, designer clothes are expensive and they often are cr*p quality and in addition, they tend to sell multiples and make some base line money on certain attires design for production but aren't the very stuff that are exclusively designed for a particular star. They seek media attention. Architecture is not that kind of business. Only a small sector of this business. By nature, the business is about serving clients not serving oneself over the needs of the client.
Frank Gehry is a popular architect but is a failure as a professional serving the client's needs. His popularity is caused by controversy. He would fail as a mainstream architect that serves clients like the average person wanting to have a house designed and built. Frank Gehry would be a failure because his designs causes controversy and attention that the majority of clients don't want. They want to fit in not stick out and draw all this attention and media fanfare. The only clients that hire Frank Gehry are those that are sold on his funky designs.
It depends on your definition of success. I'll frankly tell you right off the bat, your chances of becoming a 'starchitect' is slim because only so many ever gets that. They often are not really just one person but are full-fledge firms and the lead principal of that firm is often the smoozer/attention grabber and all that pumping out steamy b.s. as if it is a golden gem. It is somewhat sleezy in that kind of business.
In my opinion, you can be very successful without having to be a 'starchitect' but by good reputation of delivery good service.
To be innovative as a developer, you need to be innovative WHERE it counts. Innovative NOT avante garde. Innovative in the areas that people in the mass wants in a home but done in a manner that doesn't price the property out of financial reach of target clients.
Less is more. Quality not quantity. Effectiveness of design. Those matter. They don't have to be plain boxes. I use principles but doesn't mean the design needs to be a stark white box.
Jul 20, 11 10:24 pm ·
·
Piero,
You wrote: "Of course, I understand all your points. They are really good. But my last question is: Why can’t architects designs incredible buildings and risk selling those buildings as real estate developers? This is my last question because it is impossible to agree with everybody in this world. Everybody thinks differently. Maybe, you don’t like the idea, but I like the idea. Perhaps, you think that it is impossible but I can think that I can make a beautiful and great design of a building and sell the building. I don’t want more repercussions and problems with the people on this website. I asked 2 days ago a question about architecture, not business and people haven’t answered me, but when I ask this kind of question about business people answer me. So I don’t understand how people say that they don’t like these economical questions. And my question about architecture was: What kind of architecture is more impressive or better Deconstructivism or high tech?"
The answer to that question lies within your post.
Sure you can design a beautiful building that is a great design but neither of those necessarily means avante garde or a Frank Gehry. What is really wrong with shed roofs and wood frame house? It all depends on how you design the project to the conditions of the site and the client. However, when you design and is your own developer and therefore no "client" then your design will have many of the same issues that stock plans use. Often stock plans are used by developers.
So ask yourself, is having a real client a bad thing because most of the most innovative houses are designed specifically for a client.
Lets have a look at something a building designer friend of mine designed:
This maybe above the level common for any standard clients. This is the high end custom design stuff. Certainly a page or two can be implemented with ordinary clients. This is obviously something a more rich client paid for. However, even custom homes for ordinary clients can be of the quality but may not be as large and have all the amenities but certainly can have quality.
This maybe over the top for a middle income to upper middle-income and many upper class income folks but still there is lots of opportunity to be creative and innovative.with many amenities. It depends on how you implement them and how you scale the project. A client can choose to have an oversized home with less amenities or a home not as large but with plenty of amenities. It doesn't have to be bland either.
Jul 20, 11 10:56 pm ·
·
However, this designer has had a couple of deep pocket clients. That was just one of them.
well clearly all pierro wants to hear is "yes, thats a very good idea. i can't believe no one's ever thought of that!"
thing is everyone's thought of it. personally, i'm not to thrilled with architecture profession in general, to be honest. its not what i thought it was, and i would like to get into development simply because its something governed by numbers-- something tangible. i also don't really like the people in it much, or the business model and salaries, but thats more of an "and also". this is all based on 4 years of school, and i've still got a lot to see about it. i liked co-op a lot, so maybe it'll be better after i graduate next month.
that being said, i've flirted with development a bit as a possible career option at some point in my life. by "flirted" i mean i not only checked out the internet, but i've read and am in the process of READING BOOKS. i'm teaching myself everything about development that I can so I can make an educated decision about whether or not I want to get into it.
i haven't read that much, but just from my limited knowledge i can tell that you, pierro, haven't read a single book on real estate development. all the articles you pull up are the ones i've already come across on internet searches waaaaay back when i was running internet searches on architects and developers. i actually ran that same search recently to see if there was anything new, and one of your dumb threads showed up on the first page of results. that in itself tells you how helpful the internet is in cases like this.
you probably can't even draw a wall section, let alone get a loan from the bank. Do you know what NOI stands for? How about ROA?
Really, all you're really doing is harassing people for giving you educated, experience influenced answers to your query. you got answers. you have been given the same answer 8,000,000,000 times. your idea is not unique. there are reasons for why the world is the way it is.
---
on a side not i have a billion questions about real estate development. so much that i think i might start a thread called : Quizzical, please answer all these real estate development questions that i have.
but they'd be real questions, not this bs. let me know if you'd be up to that quizzical!
Jul 20, 11 11:12 pm ·
·
I'm sure that is all he wants but why should we put him on a primrose path. It would be borderline CRIMINAL to do that. It is important to inform the issues in depth.
It isn't something that you want to be walk into uninformed.
I suspect that it is something the client wanted. It is something of a client specific desire. I personally don't have an issue with it. It is a novelty thing. Other than that, I think it is an interesting design. What do people think?
OK RickB-OR. You are the master who knows everything. I don't want to argue anymore with anyone, and I don't know why I posted this because I knew that a lot of people would answer like that. Of course, I know all the points which you mentioned above about real estate development because I live in the real world. I don't live in the moon. I respect your opinion because that is what you think but I think something different. This is the world. Everybody thinks differently. If everybody would think the same, we would be equal. The only thing that I can tell you is that we'll see in the future.
Jul 21, 11 1:34 am ·
·
Having read or know the points would also have taught you that you can't do something like that because the banks would cease funding the project and project is dead where it is at. Since banks are pretty much an absolute must because no other funding source out there exists to finance real estate development unless it meets certain criterias.
We live in a world that doesn't fund jacks*** unless risks are mitigated. Especially since the collapse of the WORLD ECONOMY. This is world wide not just U.S.
When you can round up $100 Million to spend as you see fit and get started with land development, GOOD LUCK ! ! ! !
Try it without the banks or others financial assistance. Don't you realize that is was risky lending that caused the bank problems that caused the bail out and cascade recession issue. Even then, they were hesitant on lending. Now the rules requires you have a credit score of 700 and higher. Many of the banks are pushing for 750-800 as the minimum before you can get construction loans and a down payment of 50% and collateral for the remaining 50%. I hope your credit score is at the 800+ range.
The way the economy is going, you'll need it.
Those that are going to be investing is going to stipulate their terms.
First of as an architect you should always be innovative regardless if you are vesting your money in it or someones else. Now since that sounds very utopian perhaps this should sound little better. If you want to be a successful architect than your should treat developer's money as if it was your own because in the long run it actual is, through returning work and architectural fees. Now the question is are all architects taking that approach; probably not, which is what distinguishes good architects from bad ones.
this is not a deep and complicated question. overall, i'm going to say 'NO'. if an architect is risk-averse as an architect, they will be risk-averse as a developer. same if they're naturally driven to be innovative.
i've seen architect/developers who were driven to be innovative, just as i've seen architects (only) who were and developers (only) who were. there are many architects who are not driven to be innovative, falling back on what they know, just as there are developers who are not innovative and take the safe routes.
whether one chooses to be innovative in design is not necessarily a product of their profession. it's a product of their personal or business/practice decisions and priorities.
Would architect innovate more if they also were developers?
I know that a lot of people already hate me because I have this economical idea. Of course, I understand that all architects should not do this idea because everybody thinks different. But if architects were developers, they would have more freedom to do what they want. Therefore, I’d want to know if architects would have more innovation being also developers. I am just giving you an opinion. Nothing else, don’t take badly. I am not saying that architects should do this. Thank you very much for your attention.
I thought we tar and feather-ed you a month or so ago.
I guess you liked it. You just may have a career in this profession after all.
Oh boy, here we go again!
Development is a risk-taking venture by its very nature, since, to succeed financially, the product (project) being developed needs to attract consumers (buyers/tenants) who have other products (projects) also competing for their money. This tends to keep risk-averse developers within a certain range of popular/common tastes likely to appeal to a greater number of consumers, and away from edgier tastes that are likely to appeal to fewer consumers.
There are certainly exceptions to this tendency. Some innovative developers specifically seek out the less-typical consumers who want edgier accommodations. But they take a greater financial risk in doing so, because 1) the amount of demand for less-conventional projects is smaller and may already be exhausted in a given market area, and 2) their particular edgy project may not appeal to that consumer segment, and go unoccupied.
My hunch is that, with their own money on the table, architects would probably behave like other developers, in the aggregate. A greater number would be risk-averse, and would design and develop more conventional projects. A smaller number would take the chance to be more creative, and hope to connect with the smaller segment of consumers looking for unusual accommodations.
So, my sense is no: on the average, architects would not innovate more if they were also developers with a financial stake in projects.
I knew that some people would answer because people on this website are selfish, and they just care about themselves. I am not saying that this idea is something good. Really, people here are so insolent and ignorant. They don't understand what I am saying. I just want to know if architects were developers. Would architecture be more innovated? I am not saying that it will be. I just want to know your answer saying "YES or NO". I don't want that stupid answer saying "Here we go again". People on this website answer me like that because a lot of them do not know how to answer me these question. Since, my questions are too deep and complicated for people here. Thus, I should ask more professionals who knows what they are answering because people on this website think that everything is a joke. Answer me a question. Give me the reasons why architects were affected by the recession. If you know everything. If their economy is too good as you said. Why are they suffering right now? Why don't they have many jobs? Of course, I can see that architects don't need any economical solution and idea which can help them because the money just comes to them.
I worked for an architect who expanded into development, and in my experience the answer is easily no. The dollar ALWAYS wins out over design, especially when it's your own.
I guess they probably would innovate more. But is innovation an important component in a successful development? Hardly. I think that's why you are frustrated, because you want innovation to equal success, but it doesn't. More often than not, going with the tried and true will lead to success.
But my question is: How do fashion designers get rich with innovated clothes? They are designers too as architects. Of course, I understand that it is hard to develop that idea. For example: If an architect as Frank Gehry would sell his buildings as his products. Wouldn't he have more freedom to do what he wants? I just want to know "YES or NO".
Piero, you already asked this exact same question a while back. Even if you take away the language barrier, you may just not be as bright as you think you are. Kind of dumb-witted actually.
So listen dimwit, there are plenty of architects working as developers. Always have been. For many reasons they tend to outsource design services.
A better question would be why don't developers provide design services.
Well, Rusty.
I think that your question is pretty good. It is true. But I think that it is hard because a lot of real estate developers do not care about architecture too much. Some do, and some don't. I read an article called "More architects don developers' hats". I think that a lot of people already read it. In this article, some architects said that many real estate developers do not care if they are selling good architecture or not. I also read this article on the website of Architect Magazine which is called " Do It Yourself" which is also an article related to economy but I don't know what you think about. This is the link if want to read it. http://www.architectmagazine.com/design-build/do-it-yourself.aspx
Piero, what does "freedom to do what you want" mean? Do you mean you only consider your own desires? A simple YES or NO will suffice, thank you.
...and now I remember why I don't visit or post on Archinect so much anymore.
What I mean with that is that the architect wouldn't need a client's opinion to design a building. Not only to considering your own desires, but of course the other architects' desires too. Architecture firm wouldn't need anyone else to design. Of course when there are competitions or something like that is different. I am not saying that architects have to be like that for everything because they would need clients' opinions to realize some buildings such as Museum, airports, governmental buildings, companies' buildings, etc. Sorry if I disrespected you saying that you have to answer with YES or NO.
"What I mean with that is that the architect wouldn't need a client's opinion to design a building."
Hey Piero - these are the greatest architects: FLWright, The Corbusier, and Howard Roark.
simple answer: NO.
longer answer: Architects can be innovative in design tasks simply because the risk is not theirs. Regardless of the actual succes of the building, you tend to get paid your fees - and the risk is on someone else. If your own money is involved, you are basically your own guard-dog: you are the one checking the economic feasibility of your own scheme. In such an instance, either one is prone to suffer: either you tone down the innovative design, or you tone down the expected economical revenue.
There is a reason that most design services offered by developers are boring, bland and unadventurous: there's less risk involved in the design, they know what to expect, and the economics are clear and simple. The same would go the other way around: I guess that an architect in general has to be a bit more conservative if he/she is the investor.
The obvious exception to this rule are the architects that are desperately convinced of their own designs. Either that works out well, or they go bankrupt within a project or two...
Your Gehry-example isn't quite just, either: Gehry is already a brand in itself: there's no need for him to establish himself as one. At the same time, his "brandishness" disallows him to be actually innovative. His design service is the brand - clients expect to get a "Gehry" from him, nothing else. For the young/small/innovative studio, things are different: they are not well-known enough to sell themselves (or their self-developed buildings) like a brand. Just like a Armani outlet store only starts making sense because Armani is actually famous. An outlet store for the-unknown-designer-who-works-out-of-her-own-bedroom-and-has-never-gone-public is just as nosensical.
So, to sum it up: NO.
The real question here is "what kind of innovation" ?
Over the course of my career, I've been in -- and out of -- the development business several times. Nothing -- and I mean NOTHING -- focuses the mind like putting your own money, and your own credit rating, at risk in order to accomplish a project as an Owner.
When you own the project personally, that "focused mind" I mention above gravitates immediately to several key questions: a) what will the project REALLY cost? b) how am I going to lease the space or find enough buyers? and c) how am I going to convince the bank to loan me enough money to make the project happen?
While we - as architects - tend to abuse the reputation of developers as 'penny-pinching, greedy bastards who don't care a whit about design' the reality is that the three questions above tend to dominate every development project and tend to govern – or, at least, greatly influence -- a very high proportion of decisions that get made.
Now - back to innovation. Because of what must be done on a project to make it happen, "design innovation" -- of the sort we architects like to discuss -- does tend to take a back seat because it makes costs hard to predict, can make schedules hard to predict, and is hard to quantify with respect to increased sales appeal or marketability of the property.
In short, the kind of "design innovation" we find appealing generally tends to add risk to the project - it adds marketing risk; it adds cost risk; and it adds financial risk. The developer's primary objective is to REDUCE risk -- if not eliminate it altogether.
That's not to say that there’s not opportunity for innovation -- however, it's not the kind of innovation that we design architects like to discuss.
The kinds of innovation I mean here are a) how can I make the site plan more efficient so land development costs won't be so high and so I can locate more units or square footage on the site; or b) how can I redesign this curtain wall so it will still function correctly but cost 8% less; or c) how can I reconfigure the floor plate to increase the leasable area by 2%.
There's more than enough opportunity for that sort of innovation -- but, as we all know, that's not what gets us on the cover of Arch. Record.
Of course, I understand all your points. They are really good. But my last question is: Why can’t architects designs incredible buildings and risk selling those buildings as real estate developers? This is my last question because it is impossible to agree with everybody in this world. Everybody thinks differently. Maybe, you don’t like the idea, but I like the idea. Perhaps, you think that it is impossible but I can think that I can make a beautiful and great design of a building and sell the building. I don’t want more repercussions and problems with the people on this website. I asked 2 days ago a question about architecture, not business and people haven’t answered me, but when I ask this kind of question about business people answer me. So I don’t understand how people say that they don’t like these economical questions. And my question about architecture was: What kind of architecture is more impressive or better Deconstructivism or high tech?
Quizzical's example nicely illustrates the general point I argue above: for the one writing the checks, "innovation" is risky, where "proven" is comforting.
"What kind of architecture is more impressive or better Deconstructivism or high tech?"
There's a reason people don't respond to a question like that. Because... wait for it...
...
... it doesn't deserve a legitimate response.
You can be new to architecture and ask simple questions and people will be happy to answer. Questions like, what is deconstructivism? (nothing really - it began with a MOMA show curated by Philip Johnson and Mark Wigley in 1988, who chose that word & theme to tie the various projects of the new generation of architects together. these architects viewed a latent discord in 'modern architecture' and constructed projects that critiqued modernist architecture within its own vocabulary - separating itself from the post-modern architects at the time who were trapped in a dialogue with history and context.)
Or, what is hi-tech? (an evolution of Archigram ideas, mostly advanced by Richard Rogers and Norman Foster..)
But to ask which is 'better' is to not understand what the central ideas of architecture are. There's good 'deconstructivist' projects and bad 'hi-tech' projects & vice versa. In the end, most people usually reduce these issue into stylistic generalizations - which is unfortunate because it ignores the quality of the architecture and space. To ask which is better is to dilute architectural discourse into a realm of hot or not.
Piero, pretend you run a business, a little store or something, and you need to lease a space. The really cool space designed by Pieroarguello Fabulous Architects is $3800 a month, and the one that isn't perfect but meets all your needs, and it is $2400 a month. Your monthly revenues average $8600 a month, but have been as low as $5000 in the off season. Keeping in mind that you still have to pay other expenses like taxes, salaries, cost of goods, etc, which space do you lease? How much is a cool and innovative space worth? Is it worth running your business into the ground?
(btw, it is ok to be young and optimistic, even naive, but you are going to have a rough life if you cannot learn from what people who know what they are talking about are trying to telling you. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.)
But Innovation is something that almost every company does to have clients because if Apple wouldn't innovate the world with their products, they wouldn't be a big company. I don't think so that all architects who will want to become a real estate developers , and also practice building design don't innovate architecture because we cannot generalize that all architects(as developers) like that idea( maintaining a simple architecture without innovation). Of course, some architects (as developers) would want to maintain traditional architecture. Really, you will never find an answer for all these questions because everybody thinks differently (As I have repeated many times). I know that a lot of people would disagree with me.
I don't think anyone here will deny that innovation is not important. Look at quizz's post again.
Dear beccabec,
Because you don't like that idea. You will never talk goodly about it, and the same for many people here. Even for myself. And you know something the new talents are the one who innovate the world. Beccabec, you are conservative person because you don't like to do something else to get more. And, a lot of people are like that. So, I can't argue about it.
Of course, I understand that. I know that innovation is risky, but I have the mentality that You have to risk to win ( it is like playing poker. If you don't risk, you don't win). Of course, you have to think about what you are going to do.
"So, I can't argue about it."
And yet, you do !
File,
Sorry to everyone if I did it.
I'm glad someone finally outed Becca as a neoconservative that she is.
"Innovation" is really only — to use a phrase outside of its meaning — object-oriented. Architecture is a collection of objects. It's far too complex to innovate on such a scale. You can compartmentalize the act and practice of architecture into definable independent parts. This is essentially what project management and scheduling does.
Developers, on one hand, pay more attention to these details than architects might because they encounter a series of costs and value judgments outside the realm of architecture. They not only have to worry about the cost of the design choices but also their operation, maintenance and whether or not those design choices have true added value.
Where would innovation in architecture happen? Primarily in office management and methods of production. Architects communicate for a living through drawings, diagrams, models and people and this communication is always changing and evolving.
Fashion designers don't get rich easily. There is an enormous gap between somebody like YSL and lesser known designers, let alone people *working for* lesser known designers.
Of course, you don't get easily rich in any business but you never find an architecture firm as rich as a fashion designer's brand such as Armani.
Piero, you are right, I am wrong. I think you should develop a project. I will send you $10 as seed money. What is your address?
Thank you for the money, but I don't need it because I am busy doing business.
"I am busy doing business."
Exactly. The internet is one of the best ways to do business for contemporary humans.
Does Archinect finally have a new meme for 2011?
The Longaberger Basket Building only has so much mileage.
But my last question is: Why can’t architects designs incredible buildings and risk selling those buildings as real estate developers?
Answer: They can. No one is stopping them but themselves. Go to it.
citizen, please stick around, if not here then on other threads - we need you.
Donna,
Your sentence is very wise, and I respect it.
"Of course, you don't get easily rich in any business but you never find an architecture firm as rich as a fashion designer's brand such as Armani."
Basically, because there's a subtle difference between selling fashion (and being able to branch off in more big market orientated goods (shirts, suits, sunglasses, parfums etcetera). Whereas architecture is still a one-off product with a high investment for the client.
But, to render your point fairly useless: what's the net worth of Armani? I read about 2,8 billion USD. What about Norman Foster, for instance? according to this source, http://www.skyscrapernews.com/news.php?ref=1527 , he's worth about 1 billion USD. To me, that's the difference between "insanely wealthy" and "absurdly wealthy"...
piero,
You don't seem to understand. Architects like 99% of the population cares about themselves and their money. Everything is a business. You don't go around throwing money at anything risky. Have you ever heard of ROI (Return On Investment). Land Development is a business. They are often already in the risk as it is since developing land is already speculative in nature. Most developers already wants to have at least 50% of the potential tenants / buyers signed onto the idea. Often, it doesn't all come out of the developer's pocket.
Another key player in development business is the banks/lenders. Even if an architect also becomes developer, it won't be any different. The same realities also matters. In addition to that, when you are being your own client or developing to a hypothetical client, it doesn't have the depth that a real client has and in turn designs tends to be stale because you are dealing with a stale hypothetical client of broad general chacterization but not the nuance a real client brings to a project that gives incredible depth and synergy to a project. (If you pick good clients)
Another issue that you forget about or is ignorant of is the potential COI issue. Besides that, when people who make $100/hr or more in this business of design and in cases, development (either as a developer or work with developers that are clients), you just might want to listen.
You seem to be just a student either barely out of high school or something. You are not ready to be an architect or a building designer. You lack materity and lack business acumen that is needed to some extent.
People give you real world advice based on real world considerations because they are familiar with the reality. If the world is like the pie in the sky idealism that you are hoping for, wouldn't you be thinking it would already be happening accordingly. But guess what, the world isn't the idealistic dream that you hope for. It never was, never is and never will be. Why? There are other people with their own ideas competing. You have other people competing amonst each other for money lending to anything else.
This is because only so many can be making middle class or upper class income. The rest are somewhere less. This is a selfish world for selfish ambitions. Didn't you know that we're humans not angels. We're not saints either. So until you grow up and get a grip with reality, and perhaps think the answers out for yourself - you are not going to be ready as an architect or building designer running a serious and real business. You need supervision and control.
Others have probably said the same thing. If you do understand, maybe you might want to learn a little bit of respecting of others. Also consider your questions you ask.
I can only base my assessment of you on what I see. Granted, I haven't gone through all the responses following the first few. In any regard, people are entitle to interpret things differently than you intended. If they do, then it is indicitive that you didn't make your intended meaning clear.
Since you ask a question based on the real world, expect it with real world considerations. People are by and large are interested in #1 themselves, family & their financial condition and #2 others.
Welcome to the human world.
Pierro,
There are only so many successful fashion designers. Alot of them fail. Why do any of them get successful in that manner, they seek high profile clients, they seek to design attires for people like Lady Gaga, Maddona and others, they do avante-garde to develop controversy and media attention but use stars to validate. However, designer clothes are expensive and they often are cr*p quality and in addition, they tend to sell multiples and make some base line money on certain attires design for production but aren't the very stuff that are exclusively designed for a particular star. They seek media attention. Architecture is not that kind of business. Only a small sector of this business. By nature, the business is about serving clients not serving oneself over the needs of the client.
Frank Gehry is a popular architect but is a failure as a professional serving the client's needs. His popularity is caused by controversy. He would fail as a mainstream architect that serves clients like the average person wanting to have a house designed and built. Frank Gehry would be a failure because his designs causes controversy and attention that the majority of clients don't want. They want to fit in not stick out and draw all this attention and media fanfare. The only clients that hire Frank Gehry are those that are sold on his funky designs.
It depends on your definition of success. I'll frankly tell you right off the bat, your chances of becoming a 'starchitect' is slim because only so many ever gets that. They often are not really just one person but are full-fledge firms and the lead principal of that firm is often the smoozer/attention grabber and all that pumping out steamy b.s. as if it is a golden gem. It is somewhat sleezy in that kind of business.
In my opinion, you can be very successful without having to be a 'starchitect' but by good reputation of delivery good service.
To be innovative as a developer, you need to be innovative WHERE it counts. Innovative NOT avante garde. Innovative in the areas that people in the mass wants in a home but done in a manner that doesn't price the property out of financial reach of target clients.
Less is more. Quality not quantity. Effectiveness of design. Those matter. They don't have to be plain boxes. I use principles but doesn't mean the design needs to be a stark white box.
Piero,
You wrote: "Of course, I understand all your points. They are really good. But my last question is: Why can’t architects designs incredible buildings and risk selling those buildings as real estate developers? This is my last question because it is impossible to agree with everybody in this world. Everybody thinks differently. Maybe, you don’t like the idea, but I like the idea. Perhaps, you think that it is impossible but I can think that I can make a beautiful and great design of a building and sell the building. I don’t want more repercussions and problems with the people on this website. I asked 2 days ago a question about architecture, not business and people haven’t answered me, but when I ask this kind of question about business people answer me. So I don’t understand how people say that they don’t like these economical questions. And my question about architecture was: What kind of architecture is more impressive or better Deconstructivism or high tech?"
The answer to that question lies within your post.
Sure you can design a beautiful building that is a great design but neither of those necessarily means avante garde or a Frank Gehry. What is really wrong with shed roofs and wood frame house? It all depends on how you design the project to the conditions of the site and the client. However, when you design and is your own developer and therefore no "client" then your design will have many of the same issues that stock plans use. Often stock plans are used by developers.
So ask yourself, is having a real client a bad thing because most of the most innovative houses are designed specifically for a client.
Lets have a look at something a building designer friend of mine designed:
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/29963_120911367939604_100000622234276_170965_6104327_n.jpg
http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/29963_120911564606251_100000622234276_170966_6013599_n.jpg
http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/29963_120911847939556_100000622234276_170968_7684498_n.jpg
http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/29963_120912121272862_100000622234276_170970_5756429_n.jpg
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/29963_120912327939508_100000622234276_170971_8315979_n.jpg
http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/29963_120912551272819_100000622234276_170972_5759588_n.jpg
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/29963_120912651272809_100000622234276_170973_6311945_n.jpg
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/29963_120912871272787_100000622234276_170975_324834_n.jpg
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/29963_120912974606110_100000622234276_170976_1931671_n.jpg
http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/29963_120913107939430_100000622234276_170977_7652298_n.jpg
http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/29963_120913347939406_100000622234276_170978_3359022_n.jpg
http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/29963_120913474606060_100000622234276_170979_5423586_n.jpg
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/29963_120913584606049_100000622234276_170980_3729628_n.jpg
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/225139_205433209487419_100000622234276_654337_5911156_n.jpg
This maybe above the level common for any standard clients. This is the high end custom design stuff. Certainly a page or two can be implemented with ordinary clients. This is obviously something a more rich client paid for. However, even custom homes for ordinary clients can be of the quality but may not be as large and have all the amenities but certainly can have quality.
This maybe over the top for a middle income to upper middle-income and many upper class income folks but still there is lots of opportunity to be creative and innovative.with many amenities. It depends on how you implement them and how you scale the project. A client can choose to have an oversized home with less amenities or a home not as large but with plenty of amenities. It doesn't have to be bland either.
However, this designer has had a couple of deep pocket clients. That was just one of them.
That designer is Jim Lucia.
well clearly all pierro wants to hear is "yes, thats a very good idea. i can't believe no one's ever thought of that!"
thing is everyone's thought of it. personally, i'm not to thrilled with architecture profession in general, to be honest. its not what i thought it was, and i would like to get into development simply because its something governed by numbers-- something tangible. i also don't really like the people in it much, or the business model and salaries, but thats more of an "and also". this is all based on 4 years of school, and i've still got a lot to see about it. i liked co-op a lot, so maybe it'll be better after i graduate next month.
that being said, i've flirted with development a bit as a possible career option at some point in my life. by "flirted" i mean i not only checked out the internet, but i've read and am in the process of READING BOOKS. i'm teaching myself everything about development that I can so I can make an educated decision about whether or not I want to get into it.
i haven't read that much, but just from my limited knowledge i can tell that you, pierro, haven't read a single book on real estate development. all the articles you pull up are the ones i've already come across on internet searches waaaaay back when i was running internet searches on architects and developers. i actually ran that same search recently to see if there was anything new, and one of your dumb threads showed up on the first page of results. that in itself tells you how helpful the internet is in cases like this.
you probably can't even draw a wall section, let alone get a loan from the bank. Do you know what NOI stands for? How about ROA?
Really, all you're really doing is harassing people for giving you educated, experience influenced answers to your query. you got answers. you have been given the same answer 8,000,000,000 times. your idea is not unique. there are reasons for why the world is the way it is.
---
on a side not i have a billion questions about real estate development. so much that i think i might start a thread called : Quizzical, please answer all these real estate development questions that i have.
but they'd be real questions, not this bs. let me know if you'd be up to that quizzical!
I'm sure that is all he wants but why should we put him on a primrose path. It would be borderline CRIMINAL to do that. It is important to inform the issues in depth.
It isn't something that you want to be walk into uninformed.
The real travesty here is those purple lights.
I suspect that it is something the client wanted. It is something of a client specific desire. I personally don't have an issue with it. It is a novelty thing. Other than that, I think it is an interesting design. What do people think?
OK RickB-OR. You are the master who knows everything. I don't want to argue anymore with anyone, and I don't know why I posted this because I knew that a lot of people would answer like that. Of course, I know all the points which you mentioned above about real estate development because I live in the real world. I don't live in the moon. I respect your opinion because that is what you think but I think something different. This is the world. Everybody thinks differently. If everybody would think the same, we would be equal. The only thing that I can tell you is that we'll see in the future.
Having read or know the points would also have taught you that you can't do something like that because the banks would cease funding the project and project is dead where it is at. Since banks are pretty much an absolute must because no other funding source out there exists to finance real estate development unless it meets certain criterias.
We live in a world that doesn't fund jacks*** unless risks are mitigated. Especially since the collapse of the WORLD ECONOMY. This is world wide not just U.S.
When you can round up $100 Million to spend as you see fit and get started with land development, GOOD LUCK ! ! ! !
Try it without the banks or others financial assistance. Don't you realize that is was risky lending that caused the bank problems that caused the bail out and cascade recession issue. Even then, they were hesitant on lending. Now the rules requires you have a credit score of 700 and higher. Many of the banks are pushing for 750-800 as the minimum before you can get construction loans and a down payment of 50% and collateral for the remaining 50%. I hope your credit score is at the 800+ range.
The way the economy is going, you'll need it.
Those that are going to be investing is going to stipulate their terms.
Since you like simple answers than: NO
First of as an architect you should always be innovative regardless if you are vesting your money in it or someones else. Now since that sounds very utopian perhaps this should sound little better. If you want to be a successful architect than your should treat developer's money as if it was your own because in the long run it actual is, through returning work and architectural fees. Now the question is are all architects taking that approach; probably not, which is what distinguishes good architects from bad ones.
@ J.James, a bit off topic comment on the photo. I wonder if it is purple lights or a blue lens filter on camera.
this is not a deep and complicated question. overall, i'm going to say 'NO'. if an architect is risk-averse as an architect, they will be risk-averse as a developer. same if they're naturally driven to be innovative.
i've seen architect/developers who were driven to be innovative, just as i've seen architects (only) who were and developers (only) who were. there are many architects who are not driven to be innovative, falling back on what they know, just as there are developers who are not innovative and take the safe routes.
whether one chooses to be innovative in design is not necessarily a product of their profession. it's a product of their personal or business/practice decisions and priorities.
no magic bullet here.
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.