Architecture used to be called "The Gentleman's Profession" - in other words, only wealthy men used to practice it.
As we continue to contribute to the expansion of the global economy, we inherently invite more diversity into our profession - not just in terms of race and gender, but also in terms of class.
Many of the projects I work on are high-end residential projects in NYC, where the median budget is between $5-10 million.
If we accept that an architect doesn't have to necessarily be wealthy to be a proficient technician or have technical knowledge/execution abilities, is the quality of design service affected by an architect's own social class? In other words, if to be an architect means to understand a client's lifestyle and be able to design for it, must you yourself have exposure to that lifestyle? Could you be "barred" from serving wealthy clients if you don't yourself exude wealth or class?
Now, I'm not talking about wealthy clients who invest in development projects. I'm strictly speaking about the residential market where you deal one-on-one with clients, instead of large corporations/development firms with multiple stake-holders.
In one word, yes; but it's not as simple - speaking strictly from experience, there is a noticeable difference in backgrounds if you were raised in a household with "higher cultural interests" than in front of a tv. Even if your wealth could be the same in terms of monetary power, the education of arch school by itself isn't enough to level the upbringing. Now, this doesn't affect the technical qualities of the work, but helps when your clients need to expand their own horizons.
It's entirely possible for an architect from a less than wealthy upbringing to 'fake it' in client meetings etc. while working in another's firm. To learn not to bat an eye at $3000 chairs and such. To not break into laughter over the discussion of opulent 'necessities' like car elevators.
It's far less likely for said architect to independently forge/be brought up with those contacts as a sole proprietor. When it comes to clients, wealth rubs shoulders with wealth from an early age, and that cannot be faked. Maybe a lifetime of actively seeking said clients, attending ivies, indebting oneself with yacht club memberships etc could beget such connections, but it's unlikely and probably not very financially sustainable.
You either are the rich architect, you work for one, or you're not doing much residential.
"You either are the rich architect, you work for one, or you're not doing much residential."
That assumes all or most residential work is high-end, which is like saying that all or most cars are the very expensive kind. There's plenty of non-luxury residential work out there. It's the bread & butter of many architects.
Back in the day my old man gave me a master bath to design in a 7,000 sf oceanfront house. At the time (1981) the scale was top of the market - now it would be considered run of the mill.
The space available was about 1200 sf. His and hers, dressing area, expansive bathing. At the time I lived in a 648 sf cottage, and I simply could not wrap my head around a bathroom twice that size.
When I finally did, 1200 sf wasn't enough, and I was looking for more.
What's difficult is imagining the absolute absurdity of the lifestyles that some of these people have. A retinue of staff, constant visits by the various service people necessary to maintain the premises, etc., virtually eliminates any sense of privacy, which is (in theory) maintained by exclusion - traveling privately to "exclusive" (expensive) places that are frequented by those who one aspires to be like. It is also maintained by class behaviors which typically result in treating others as less human.
Which makes architects just another form of staff to the entitled. On the highest level you'll never compete with these people socially (economically), you'll only be recognized as a brand, and the more successful the brand, the more of those clients you'll get. Because they don't know any better.
So you could argue that when considering office politics in firms with such wealthy clients, especially office politics among people in positions that have extensive client contact, that some may be chosen (or ousted) from those positions based on the firm leadership's prejudice about whether or not they can "develop rapport" with the client. And while it is possible for people to "fake it", at the end of the day, its about either having, or creating the illusion that you have the same class as your client that makes them "like" dealing with you.
Jan 18, 18 1:49 pm ·
·
JLC-1
why are you thinking about this?
Jan 18, 18 2:24 pm ·
·
BulgarBlogger
Just thinking out loud about how organizations are structured. I used to think that architecture is an exception.
One of the most prominent architects in New England who does extensive residential work in Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, and the Boston area for the oldest of the Olde Money was an ordinary middle-class kid who went to Syracuse. He does a lot of restoration projects of classic shingle-style homes whereas the New Money would just bulldoze and build anew (McMansion or Repulsive Modern).
Architects are sometimes tapped to serve a wealthy client's needs if the client likes their work. An Ivy League pedigree or country club notoriety are not the only way to get noticed by potential wealthy clients. If you can get published or have a projects in places where those types of clients will see/experience it you have a good change to get into the wealthy residential market. This market often works on a network of recommendations but sometimes a gateway project is a way to jump into it.
Examples of gateway projects that may lead to high end residential work that don't always need wealthy connections to land:
art galleries
work for a non for profit organization that has wealthy benafactors
local governments and parks
private schools (K-12)
shops, offices or studios for people who serve wealthy clients (think hair salons, shops located in the main streets of Greewich or the Hamptons, trendy restaurants and doctors offices)
Connections are useful but doing good work that people want is also a way to get clients in the high end residential market.
The thing is you have to enjoy meeting people and telling your story while being reasonably humble/comfortable to be around. Some folks hate chasing down work others love it. Being able to land clients is a way to gain more control of your career and to open up more options for what you are asked to design. Being humble often requires a less dogmatic approach to what is good architecture. If the client want's a colonial house then your job is to design a good colonial style house not to try and sneak in modernist or other current design thinking that the client does not want. Most clients will tell you what they want and don't want. Most people don't want their home to be your grand experiment in design or style. If you build a reputation as someone who listens to their clients you have a good chance of landing high end clients for residential work.
Over and OUT
Peter N
Jan 18, 18 2:07 pm ·
·
hellion
I agree with this so much. Nothing makes for good marketing than a client's mouth.
The open concept living room/kitchen for the last cottage I designed, is literally big enough that I can fit my own entire 1.5 storey house inside, roof included. That's just the living room/kitchen.
I grew up in a 1,000sf house where my parents still live. Sometimes I do stand back and think that this is all just crazy. I don't feel like an imposter, I just find it hard to relate to such entitlement.
Jan 18, 18 2:57 pm ·
·
JLC-1
it is crazy, but you are not - I've struggled with this for a long time, my best approach is to focus on the value of the craft, not the monetary price. I worked 5 years for a university and 7 for a firm were we did tract housing, it was hard to re-learn not to worry about budgets. Just finished a 5M cottage and starting a 4M in april.Those numbers don't mean anything to me, but I know at least a 50% is because I detailed the shit out of everything and the final product is kick-ass no matter how expensive it is.
So would it be fair to say then, that certain jobs or clientelle are not “open” to eveyone, and that is in part determined by whether or not an architect can function in said clientelle’s circle and understand their class culture.
For the most part you will never be in the client's social circle, as this is largely determined by wealth.
But if you are comfortable with yourself - and specifically not intimidated by wealth - you can fit in anywhere. Whether or not you are accepted is another matter.
For some, a 'gentleman' is determined by the amount of wealth. For others, it is determined by the quality of behavior. The inverse proportion rule often applies here, as demonstrated by behaviors of entitlement.
To put it more succinctly, poor people can't afford to be assholes.
Of course there is more to just having money. Look at Trump- all money, no class (the amount of money part is questionable too). I understand that just because you have money it doesn’t necessarily mean you have class.
But anyway: what Im getting at is that there are things clients of a certain tax bracket expect of the people they deal with and whether you work for yourself or a firm, even if you are a talented designer or a solid technician, there is more to the job than your training and skills. The social aspect, and I think this goes for any business, is incredibly important and since most firms (I recently read a statistic that around 70% of architecture firms have fewer than 5 employees) deal with clients who have money by virtue of the fact that construction in general isn’t cheap (its not like going to pick up some beers at your local bodega), those who service them (i.e. architects) have to be able to function in a way that doesn’t turn off the Clientelle. Its interesting because I know quite a few architects (in large firms) who are very talented and knowledgable, but they are so low-class and socially awkward.
I wonder if there is a prejudce among senior staff (who are generally older with more experience) about younger staff not being as socially sophsticated?
is there age discrimination in the architecture profession? I totally think there is, but Im not convinced it is entirely because of the less amount of technical experience...
I think what you're getting at with that last one bulgar is that *most people* aren't so great at schmoozing clients or being articulate about technical subjects in general. Navigating the nuanced politics of business and clients is not an easy skill set to master regardless of the field and only a few will rise to the occasion. Starting out less wealthy makes it more difficult - not impossible - but a huge set of ['high brow'] social norms must be learned as opposed to being groomed for from an early age.
Come back to Europe, the wealth is spread way more equally, there's much more appreciation for architecture - from institutional to residential and governments and municipalities still care and are willing to put their money where their mouth is. It would solve a lot of your issues that seem to be very much related to the American/New York condition.
I had dinner with a wealthy developer and his wife once and she told me I ordered the wrong thing. I'm sure I did a lot wrong.
I walked into a very fine home once with mud in my shoes and said I needed to take them off because of it but the owner insisted it was ok and added that he wasn't "like that", pretentious (did I inadvertently suggest he was?) So I tracked mud into their beautiful home and they really didn't seem to care. I guess it gives the maid something to do?
I worked for an ultra-high-end residential firm for a few years, where the firm owner had come from a lower middle-class background and loved to tell stories of how he pulled himself by his bootstraps from his culturally impoverished beginnings to become designer-to-the-richie-riches. I can't say he exuded class or exhibited any proficiency in the social graces. Kind of the opposite really. What he did do was constantly network at a level higher than where he might seem to fit in. He spent a lot of his time conferencing - going to Renaissance Weekend and things through the Aspen Institute and all the other various limited-access venues where the political and financial elite do their hobnobbing - and just acted as if the very fact of his presence at those venues was enough to establish that he was worthy of their business. Those were his client base, and they sent their friends, and so on. I think getting initial access to that circle in those settings was his key - much more so than actually appearing to fit in in terms of background, manner, etiquette, etc. - he really didn't try to pretend he did fit in in those ways.
My husband clients have invited us vacation with them. We went once, after dinner I tripped and fell flat on my face. Classy, but we all just laughed and blamed it on bad design.
Social Class in the Architectural Profession
Architecture used to be called "The Gentleman's Profession" - in other words, only wealthy men used to practice it.
As we continue to contribute to the expansion of the global economy, we inherently invite more diversity into our profession - not just in terms of race and gender, but also in terms of class.
Many of the projects I work on are high-end residential projects in NYC, where the median budget is between $5-10 million.
If we accept that an architect doesn't have to necessarily be wealthy to be a proficient technician or have technical knowledge/execution abilities, is the quality of design service affected by an architect's own social class? In other words, if to be an architect means to understand a client's lifestyle and be able to design for it, must you yourself have exposure to that lifestyle? Could you be "barred" from serving wealthy clients if you don't yourself exude wealth or class?
Now, I'm not talking about wealthy clients who invest in development projects. I'm strictly speaking about the residential market where you deal one-on-one with clients, instead of large corporations/development firms with multiple stake-holders.
In one word, yes; but it's not as simple - speaking strictly from experience, there is a noticeable difference in backgrounds if you were raised in a household with "higher cultural interests" than in front of a tv. Even if your wealth could be the same in terms of monetary power, the education of arch school by itself isn't enough to level the upbringing. Now, this doesn't affect the technical qualities of the work, but helps when your clients need to expand their own horizons.
F. Scott Fitzgerald : "You know the rich are different from you and me"
Ernest Hemingway: "Yes, they have got more money"
It's far less likely for said architect to independently forge/be brought up with those contacts as a sole proprietor. When it comes to clients, wealth rubs shoulders with wealth from an early age, and that cannot be faked. Maybe a lifetime of actively seeking said clients, attending ivies, indebting oneself with yacht club memberships etc could beget such connections, but it's unlikely and probably not very financially sustainable.
You either are the rich architect, you work for one, or you're not doing much residential.
"You either are the rich architect, you work for one, or you're not doing much residential."
That assumes all or most residential work is high-end, which is like saying that all or most cars are the very expensive kind. There's plenty of non-luxury residential work out there. It's the bread & butter of many architects.
OP rather explicitly asked about high end residential / wealthy clients.
Middle income is another ball game entirely.
Point taken.
Back in the day my old man gave me a master bath to design in a 7,000 sf oceanfront house. At the time (1981) the scale was top of the market - now it would be considered run of the mill.
The space available was about 1200 sf. His and hers, dressing area, expansive bathing. At the time I lived in a 648 sf cottage, and I simply could not wrap my head around a bathroom twice that size.
When I finally did, 1200 sf wasn't enough, and I was looking for more.
What's difficult is imagining the absolute absurdity of the lifestyles that some of these people have. A retinue of staff, constant visits by the various service people necessary to maintain the premises, etc., virtually eliminates any sense of privacy, which is (in theory) maintained by exclusion - traveling privately to "exclusive" (expensive) places that are frequented by those who one aspires to be like. It is also maintained by class behaviors which typically result in treating others as less human.
Which makes architects just another form of staff to the entitled. On the highest level you'll never compete with these people socially (economically), you'll only be recognized as a brand, and the more successful the brand, the more of those clients you'll get. Because they don't know any better.
Be careful what you wish for.
So you could argue that when considering office politics in firms with such wealthy clients, especially office politics among people in positions that have extensive client contact, that some may be chosen (or ousted) from those positions based on the firm leadership's prejudice about whether or not they can "develop rapport" with the client. And while it is possible for people to "fake it", at the end of the day, its about either having, or creating the illusion that you have the same class as your client that makes them "like" dealing with you.
why are you thinking about this?
Just thinking out loud about how organizations are structured. I used to think that architecture is an exception.
One of the most prominent architects in New England who does extensive residential work in Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, and the Boston area for the oldest of the Olde Money was an ordinary middle-class kid who went to Syracuse. He does a lot of restoration projects of classic shingle-style homes whereas the New Money would just bulldoze and build anew (McMansion or Repulsive Modern).
Architects are sometimes tapped to serve a wealthy client's needs if the client likes their work. An Ivy League pedigree or country club notoriety are not the only way to get noticed by potential wealthy clients. If you can get published or have a projects in places where those types of clients will see/experience it you have a good change to get into the wealthy residential market. This market often works on a network of recommendations but sometimes a gateway project is a way to jump into it.
Examples of gateway projects that may lead to high end residential work that don't always need wealthy connections to land:
art galleries
work for a non for profit organization that has wealthy benafactors
local governments and parks
private schools (K-12)
shops, offices or studios for people who serve wealthy clients (think hair salons, shops located in the main streets of Greewich or the Hamptons, trendy restaurants and doctors offices)
Connections are useful but doing good work that people want is also a way to get clients in the high end residential market.
The thing is you have to enjoy meeting people and telling your story while being reasonably humble/comfortable to be around. Some folks hate chasing down work others love it. Being able to land clients is a way to gain more control of your career and to open up more options for what you are asked to design. Being humble often requires a less dogmatic approach to what is good architecture. If the client want's a colonial house then your job is to design a good colonial style house not to try and sneak in modernist or other current design thinking that the client does not want. Most clients will tell you what they want and don't want. Most people don't want their home to be your grand experiment in design or style. If you build a reputation as someone who listens to their clients you have a good chance of landing high end clients for residential work.
Over and OUT
Peter N
I agree with this so much. Nothing makes for good marketing than a client's mouth.
The open concept living room/kitchen for the last cottage I designed, is literally big enough that I can fit my own entire 1.5 storey house inside, roof included. That's just the living room/kitchen.
I grew up in a 1,000sf house where my parents still live. Sometimes I do stand back and think that this is all just crazy. I don't feel like an imposter, I just find it hard to relate to such entitlement.
it is crazy, but you are not - I've struggled with this for a long time, my best approach is to focus on the value of the craft, not the monetary price. I worked 5 years for a university and 7 for a firm were we did tract housing, it was hard to re-learn not to worry about budgets. Just finished a 5M cottage and starting a 4M in april.Those numbers don't mean anything to me, but I know at least a 50% is because I detailed the shit out of everything and the final product is kick-ass no matter how expensive it is.
So would it be fair to say then, that certain jobs or clientelle are not “open” to eveyone, and that is in part determined by whether or not an architect can function in said clientelle’s circle and understand their class culture.
For the most part you will never be in the client's social circle, as this is largely determined by wealth. But if you are comfortable with yourself - and specifically not intimidated by wealth - you can fit in anywhere. Whether or not you are accepted is another matter.
For some, a 'gentleman' is determined by the amount of wealth. For others, it is determined by the quality of behavior. The inverse proportion rule often applies here, as demonstrated by behaviors of entitlement.
To put it more succinctly, poor people can't afford to be assholes.
Of course there is more to just having money. Look at Trump- all money, no class (the amount of money part is questionable too). I understand that just because you have money it doesn’t necessarily mean you have class.
But anyway: what Im getting at is that there are things clients of a certain tax bracket expect of the people they deal with and whether you work for yourself or a firm, even if you are a talented designer or a solid technician, there is more to the job than your training and skills. The social aspect, and I think this goes for any business, is incredibly important and since most firms (I recently read a statistic that around 70% of architecture firms have fewer than 5 employees) deal with clients who have money by virtue of the fact that construction in general isn’t cheap (its not like going to pick up some beers at your local bodega), those who service them (i.e. architects) have to be able to function in a way that doesn’t turn off the Clientelle. Its interesting because I know quite a few architects (in large firms) who are very talented and knowledgable, but they are so low-class and socially awkward.
I wonder if there is a prejudce among senior staff (who are generally older with more experience) about younger staff not being as socially sophsticated?
i wonder if that last bit, if true, prevents younger architects from either gettig real architecture work or being promoted in any way...
is there age discrimination in the architecture profession? I totally think there is, but Im not convinced it is entirely because of the less amount of technical experience...
Bulgar, you should read Class by Paul Fusssell. He puts it all in the proper perspective
Come back to Europe, the wealth is spread way more equally, there's much more appreciation for architecture - from institutional to residential and governments and municipalities still care and are willing to put their money where their mouth is. It would solve a lot of your issues that seem to be very much related to the American/New York condition.
I had dinner with a wealthy developer and his wife once and she told me I ordered the wrong thing. I'm sure I did a lot wrong.
I walked into a very fine home once with mud in my shoes and said I needed to take them off because of it but the owner insisted it was ok and added that he wasn't "like that", pretentious (did I inadvertently suggest he was?) So I tracked mud into their beautiful home and they really didn't seem to care. I guess it gives the maid something to do?
I worked for an ultra-high-end residential firm for a few years, where the firm owner had come from a lower middle-class background and loved to tell stories of how he pulled himself by his bootstraps from his culturally impoverished beginnings to become designer-to-the-richie-riches. I can't say he exuded class or exhibited any proficiency in the social graces. Kind of the opposite really. What he did do was constantly network at a level higher than where he might seem to fit in. He spent a lot of his time conferencing - going to Renaissance Weekend and things through the Aspen Institute and all the other various limited-access venues where the political and financial elite do their hobnobbing - and just acted as if the very fact of his presence at those venues was enough to establish that he was worthy of their business. Those were his client base, and they sent their friends, and so on. I think getting initial access to that circle in those settings was his key - much more so than actually appearing to fit in in terms of background, manner, etiquette, etc. - he really didn't try to pretend he did fit in in those ways.
Most of adult life is like high school, only more so.
I think I can fake it, until they invite me to go skiing with them in Gstaad or sailing off Corsica.
Sardegna is better, Corcega is a bit rough.
My husband clients have invited us vacation with them. We went once, after dinner I tripped and fell flat on my face. Classy, but we all just laughed and blamed it on bad design.
I happen to like St. Barths
Social skills come from Seinfeld, the Simpsons, and South Park, right?
I like Roseanne too. And Tim the Tool Man. How else does one know how to talk thru a fence? Then there was Urkle...
Yes and yes and SNL, Wayne and Garth, etc. I never stooped to Beavis and butthead levels though.
The penultimate guide to the American social system. A must-read for architects.
If you do lux res you also need this one.
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.