How can architecture market itself to the general public??? How can we convince people that we are a group of people who can provide a useful service???
Currently, architecture is a profession for architects. Our publications are read mostly by architects and those in the design profession (Architectural Digest is an exception, but...)
In Cincinnati, I recieve, on a monthly basis, the Cincinnati Home Design Trends magazine. This 'newsletter', put out by the local home builders, shows me all of the current trends in home designs and then gives me a list of people who will build them for me. This is just one example of how the building industry is educating consumers as to what he or she should build.
I propose that architecture needs a spokesperson, and I nominate Brad Pitt. If you did not already know, Brad Pitt (as in the actor, married to Jen) is a huge architecture buff. He was on Charlie Rose a few weeks ago promoting his new movie 'Troy'. At least a third of the program was taken up discussing the new Gehry Disney Hall and the effect that it will have on the city. Pitt has been mentione before as being a huge Gehry fan as well as MVRDV.
There is a reason that companies use celebs to endorse their products. Brad, if you are out there...
hmm....bit off topic, but I remember watching a (don't laugh) Barbara Walters Interview of Pitt, Clooney, Roberts, and the rest of the cast of Ocean's Eleven. At the time of the interview the 9/11 stuff had just happened so Walters asked the cast what they thought about the rebuilding of the WTC and what they thought of a memorial. Pitt went off about rebuilding the towers and he mentioned curtain wall and steel columns and a nuch of other sutff. Julia Roberts responded with "Aren't you the architect!" Off-topic, but interesting nonetheless.
Well, I'm not sure if "celebs" are the solution to the problem. I'd rather prefer that architects participated more in public discussions, polemics, open lectures and such. I can also appreciate the swedish version where some newspapers recently have started to write a lot about international architecture and new buildings, and where architects (albeit the most famous ones) appear on television or radio. I've even gotten into discussions about Pei, Calatrava and MVRDV with my family! Swedish architecture is still mediocre though.
I would say a handful of cheesy-ass syndicates monopolize the representation of design and arch on the tube right now, and a few more true design-advocates need to find ways of recallibrating how arch is pitched to the public over broad mediums like TV. Perhaps architects also need to take a more proactive involvement in the dirt with communities less identified as having any kind of design relationship and do something for them, on both a community level as well as general purpose outreach to bring designers out of their bubble.
there's such a renewed interest in the home right now. the aia should be running commercials on HGTV and putting ads in all those cheesey magazines. people need to know about the benefits of hiring an architect.
it would also help if we would started speaking in ways that the general public could understand instead of using psuedo intellucual archibabble.
bfunk, e-rizzy, I agree with both of you. I currently get a fair amount of my work from a couple of general contractors I have developed relationships with: people call them for a house or addition first, and they (sometimes) recognize the need for an architect and call me....but the bottom line is that the construction industry in general has done more to convince people to call them first (at least when it comes to home design/construction). There are several construction companies around here (Denver area) that have in-house "design" capability which usually translates into a couple of CAD techs, and some guy "designing" the houses, based on the last big monstrosity that was built for a parade of homes. These houses are excessively big, cater to the ostentatious display of wealth, and ignore climate, site, etc. Yet, these companies are building plenty of "product", making lots of money, because the general public is conditioned to call a builder, not call an architect. The AIA's ill advised tv ads a few years ago were a waste of money (my opinion): the same money spent on print ads in local "home design" magazines would have been much more beneficial, I think.
I didnt know that Dwell was going to do a TV show, but it makes sense. The architect that I am currently working with has had many people come to him wanting a 'Dwell' house.
Design is definately becoming more mainstream in all aspects of life, and architecture will catch on at some point.
It will be interresting to see where the whole sustainable thing will go in the mainstream due to our current crisis in the Mideast.
On a completely unrealated topic, the new French Kicks album, Trial of the Century, is brilliant.
We have purposefully distanced ourselves from the educated public with whom we share this planet
Damn straight. Architecture is an absurdly elitist profession that fundamentally views itself as an avocation for idle gentlemen and country squires. Doctors and lawyers can get away with this because people NEED them. Nobody sees themselves as needing an architect. If they need anybody, it's a contractor or a builder -- both of whom sell themselves as "blue collar".
Every time "architecture" tries to change itself it does so in order to become MORE elitist, not less. We pile on more and more pointless educational requirements, laboring under the absurd delusion that if we become more selective than doctors and lawyers, we'll also be as well paid.
Guess what? It isn't working. Architecture is so in love with itself that it's slowly wrapping into a tighter and tighter clique that's less and less relevant to the rest of the world. While we prance about and preen ourselves, builders, contractors and engineers are rapidly devouring what's left of "our" market.
The problem is general promotion will not work, and it will certainly not benefit every architect. Unlike law and medicine, it is obvious to most architects that come from a half decent education who is good and who isn't. Most dr.s and lawyers will respect eachother, and not know anything about the other except that they are also in the profession. Do architects do this? Certainly not, and with good reason. Simply put, the percentage of good to bad architects leans heavily in favor of 'bad'. I know, numerous reasons for this and a broad generalization, but it's true, nonetheless.
If architecture was promoted in a typical fashion, builders, developers, and 'designers' of cooky cutter homes would take the market (not that they don't already, but you can bet they'd take over the marketing, if simply by having more $$ to invest).
The best help for architecture that I've seen is through the use in movies, maybe even Brad's discussions, and adds. The Infiniti suv is photographed (probably composited) in front of Diamond Ranch. Bilbao has been in numerous adds and movies, and so forth. If that prompts just one person to want to know 'what' or 'who' about the setting, then that's priceless advertising for good architecture.
It'd be a happy day when the better architects got more cash, based on their talent. Then it would truly be a dream profession.
It seems that the 'bad' guy always has the 'cool' house in the movies. Jackie Treehorn in Lebowski, the yuppies in x-mas vacation, Bueller's friend in Ferris Bueller, etc.
MrBaboon: well said! Architects spend more time trying to impress other architects than most any other profession. Very few potential clients care about our archibabble semantic posturing.
trace: I agree that general exposure advertising is not terribly effective. The use of "trendy" buildings in movies and tv is helpful, but still has it's limits. (remember Miami Vice/Architectonica apt building?) Lawyers and doctors and dentists are necessary, so they prosper. Architects are not legally necessary for single family housing in most places: I doubt if that will change soon, although it would certainly help.
It may be that the general public first of all has little understanding what architects do. Second, They rather devote their finances to something other than thougthful planning. Or some just think that all we do is scribble out some ideas and send them a huge bill. Not realizing how much time and energy even a "simple addition" requires. Builders could possibly be the biggest problem with this. Builders on our projects think they understand how to design. So theres alot of delibration amongst the trades of whats good a bad about a project. Therefore, later on they will promote the idea that we simply aren't needed when someone they know has a design project They will attempt to take it on themselves. For example today I got a call from a builder who suggested that he would do all the drawings for a residential project and I would help him by providing framing sizes. And that I was needed to consult on aesthetic issues. I'm not saying he wasn't capable of designing the project only that this is a common mindset out there. My reaction was for him to stick what he does best .. building and I would stick to what I do best. Then I turned down the job.
Architects are elitest mainly because we desire respect. Next, because we are educated to beleve we are the only ones who can design. We are the snobs of the construction industry. And by that we automatically distance ourselves from the majority. The profession needs to evolve.
We need an organized political voice. We need to prove to law makers that good design is necessary to society. There are half hearted attempts to ensure good design: zoning laws and design review committees, but they don't work. The only option is to REVOLT.
Revort against who, against what? Against the law makers?
Basically our options are limited to :
(1) POLITICAL ACTION making it legally required to have an architect on building projects or
(2) SOCIAL EDUCATION convincing our clients (anyone who builds something) that what we bring is worth thier time and money.
This brings up an interesting question? Why don't most people care if thier house 'sucks' or if thier urban environment is well designed? It clearly doesn't bother people . . .
BTW, the amount of worthwhile constructive discussions have multiplied 10fold since the new site was launched. More kudos to Paul et all.
It’s not just that “Nobody sees themselves as needing an architect.â€. They in fact don’t need an architect.
Their “need†of doctors and lawyers is really a social construct, but it’s one that exists. There are of course certain types of projects with similar social constructs on which an architect is in fact required to participate. But not in the home building industry.
Architecture is a luxury. It is not a necessity. Frank Lloyd Wright said something to the effect of “give me the luxuries of life and I will gladly do without the necessities†as in if I can have fine wine and veal, you can keep your grain and water.
I also feel compelled to point out that this “encroachment†of homebuilders taking away “architects†work, is well… not true. If you look back in history have been the servants of the wealthy; Palladio’s Villa Capra-Rotunda wasn’t exactly a home for the peasants. They’re not taking anything from us. It’s a segment of building that never really was the territory of architects.
At some level I would argue that homebuilding as we are talking about it (as in NOT the Villa Capra-Rotunda, Lila Savoy) by builders, is vernacular building (and is proceeding in much the fashion that it has throughout most of history), and one could argue, sort of by definition, isn’t even architecture (Now before anyone lays into me on this one I think I should clarify that I’m all about housing.).
That’s not to say that architects don’t have something to offer to people who don’t NEED them. It’s not that architects couldn’t do a better job than the builders (at certain levels), and certainly housing developments have huge implications to how our cities develop and the “freedom†for profit developers are being given effectively has them planning our cities for us... which is probably not the best situation. So certainly homebuilding has huge implications for architecture. I just wanted to point out, that it’s sort of… not architecture (of course one has to define what architecture is and what its’ role within society is and what it’s doing culturally). Now if that means I’m not doing “Architecture†well that’s just fine by me.
In regards to Brad Pitt, our office was considering sending a care package to the new intern at Gehrys office. Any suggestions as to what we should include? (we meant to do this a while ago, but better late then never)
The problem seems to be that there are a lot of different kinds of architects out there. Pragmatic builders and theorists all fit under the same umbrella. Maybe the thing to do, should we want to promote our trade to the public, would be to shatter this monolith, and start training a small amount of conceptual wizards and a bigger percentage of people educated in facts and figures concerning building as well as peoples needs and expectations.
The pragmatists would make themselves useful for the public, having a short education, no babble and minimum theory. And they would share most of the values of their mundane clients.
On the other hand, we always need to train our Archinauts to explore the road unknown, but these are the ones the public really doesn't want to know about. Even if Brad would.
its really a fact that we architects are not that famous in the local people that's why the problem has been created, that we are not able to explain people tha twe can really help them in creating their premises. Solution is probably to work more towards local audiances, arranging exhibitions of our work for local people(has to be proper for them to understand, not merely 2d dwgs.), internet can be used for such things,and finally i think we should not think of ourselves as out of the world, rather a part of the society, and must be in touch with the same.
Don't you think Tyler Durden would be anti-Architecture? I mean, architecture is a commodity like anything else and would fall under the anti-consumerism mantra of Fight Club.
I truly believe that architecture, at least good architecture is needed. This is the same with 'good' lawyers and doctors. Where architecture fails and they succeed is that they've made it their business to be needed. But our profession has the unique ability to impact society beyond our life times.
Does law have to be so difficult to do simple things? No way, but who would benefit from a simplification? Us poor folk who don't pay any lobbiests or officials. Same with regular MDs. Do I need a doctor to prescribe some extra strength tylenol? No, a registered nurse can write prescriptions and their salaries are about a 1/4 of a MDs. But it's become acceptable and we expect to have our doc write them, and our insurance pay them (another cog in the money sucking machine). It's all business.
Architects typically suck at business and that's why our profession is vanishing.
psycho-mullet: good post, great point about the historical role of architects...rich clients and all that. absolutely correct. Problem arises in today's (presumed) egalitarian society....we tend to want to embrace the notion of serving the "people" (the poor, disenfranchised, downtrodden masses) (no sarcasm intended) while we really, deep down inside, (putting on my psycho babble hat) want to be part of that intellectual artistic elite and enjoy the wine and veal as Frank did. So we rail against developers/home builders since they pull so many permits, build so much, with very limited input from architects....all the time we wish we were getting the commission to design the new musuems....even as the local "elite" community members who populate the architect selection committees feel a need to select an architect from abroad in order to obtain a "leading edge" building. (Denver just fell for this, not once, but twice, basically slapping the local architectural community in the face, saying in effect that nobody in Denver could possibly be good enough to design a museum.) Once again, we as architects work to construct the myth of some intellectual elite avant garde "designer", only to fall victim to it. Go figure.
I dont think relying on the attention of 'starchitect' projects and hollywoodized publicity is a good strategy to relay the essence of architecture to the average consumer market. Sure that attention does its part but it only confirms architecutre as something "unattainable", "only in the movies", of pertaining to the god-realms of the biggest names, it does verry little to entice the public with an understanding of the sensible common day applicability of the industry to their own lives. In fact I think they are these very stratified depictions of arch which keeps the general public from ever really considering architecture beyond the notion of zillion dollar projects and make-things of the rich. It is the very notion of these zillion dollar projects which spread the capital in the industry so inequally. There has to be a more direct contact approach taken, something to offer a personability up front with the general public. Architects need to get out and meet communities, serve the educational process more but on a less academic scale and more for the purpose of general outreach, education at all levels. Greater roles in local politics, more intimate partnerships with smaller homebuyer organizations, some form of activism needs to guide the approach rather than just more clever marketing or higher pop culture visibilty through psuedo-notions put forth by Cinema. But it's all been said before. I saw this and thought it was maybe more exemplary of the types of approach architects should be investigating.
Architects aim to raise £120,000 for Shelter during Architecture Week 2004
"Would you love to have professional advice about your house but have been too afraid to ask? Are you looking to adapt your home for an expanding family? Are you considering building an extension or converting your attic? Find out what an architect can do for you!
RIBA Architect in the House is the annual event, organised by the Royal Institute of British Architects, which partners members of the public with architects throughout the country - to discuss the design potential of their homes in return for a donation to Shelter.
The initiative is taking place as part of Architecture Week, the annual national celebration of architecture from 18 – 27 June 2004.
Architecture for Humanity is really helping in this role. Of bringing the idea of design to the mass market. Many cities have started "meetups" centered around getting architects active in their communities and in teaching the values of design in tackling social issues. check out Architecture for Humanity's website. I'm involved in the New York group and we are already undertaking projects with two community arts groups and are becoming involved with an event in Cincinnati, Ohio. If you want to know more, check out the AFH New York website www.afhny.org
I agree with bfunk that the first steps toward promoting and marketing the profession is improving the accessibility of our services and knowledge base to the general public.
I think we should start marketing our services to children. They have the strongest leverage in the buying habits of thier parents (this is why Sponge Bob is used to sell mini-vans). Make the kids want to live in cool houses.
It worked with the Brady Bunch; When I was younger, I thought that if I became an architect, I would be hanging out with the likes of Marcia Brady
as one who has taken my share of marketing classes mdler is on the right track. If we are going to truly market architecture to the 'masses' we need to go after children and the young adult crowd. Sadly, they don't have the $$$ to pay us those fat commisions we all want.
There are so many good ideas on this post I don't want to echo what has already been said.
I think a major problem with the profession of architecture is the 'get rich quick' giant consumerism society that the west has become. Think about it, good architecture is a costly investment. I've had clients seriously say they don't want to pay for 'good design' because they have no intentions on 'holding onto' this building.
To market the profession and rally against this build it fast and cheap mentality Tyler Durden might be the right spokesperson. He could talk about destroying the shopping malls and Wal-Mart stores and replacing them with something significant.
A serious marketing campaign in the mainstream media cannot hurt. My only question would be who the hell is going to pay for it? Can the AIA get federal matching funds?
I didnt read everyone's comments so this may have already been stated.
The problem with promoting architecture is that it is an expensive thing for the general public to acquire. The general public cannot affoard "architecture" and that is why shows that market do-it-yourself work are so favorable. Shows like trading spaces, while you were out, etc. show quick, cheap ways to spice up your home. Therefore if we, as architects could provide the general public with buildings that are inexpensive we might have a shot.
However, Architecture is to home design as Chanel, Louis Vuitton, etc are to fashion. In other words, there are many levels of homes as there are varity within the fashion world. A home can be, build-it-yourself, track home, home designed by person without architect, with architect, etc. So the questions becomes, are you willing, with all your ego, pride, hard work over the years, etc. to let go what you hold closely in order to strive towards an architecture that parallels that of Gap in clothing design? Sure there are great work that has been done with a minimal budget, but how many of us would feel that much pleasure from doing that? What I mean is that it seems that today, most architects/students are interested in buildings that would be very much over the amount of money the average citizen of the United States would acquire in a lifetime. Also how much inexpensive architecture has been photographed and accepted by the general public?
I think that if we are ever going to change America's attitude toward architecture, we have to search for more value in the things that we do on a regular basis. For example, less fast food (it's cheap but aint great), no more price club/sam's club, less bargain deals all around. Once the general public feels comfortable spending more money for better quality, then it will become much easier for architects to persuade them to take on their design.
Well, what I think tman and I were getting at is that, by definition (mine), the ambitions of architecture (like fashion) are more than providing the most basic shelter. Like Louis Vuitton architecture is "excessive" it is a luxury, and like Louis Vuitton, by doing more than providing the most basic of shelter, it's likely going to cost more.
And in simple economic scales, architecture is custom, mass productions (builder homes) spreads design costs across many units rendering design costs infinitesimal.
At some level it's architects own fault for not engaging the subject. But the whole mass production/customization and architecutre is a whole other discussion.
I think we should stop banging our heads against the wall on this issue. Nothing will ever change. Defeatist, I know, but the reality is that America will never have a favorable opinion of the arts - architecture being an art - and that is the difference between us Americans and Europeans. They look favorably towards design, appreciate what design can do in all aspects of life and have managed to integrate that appreciation into European life.
Americans have no problem paying 10,000 for a plasma tv, but give them a fee for the home to put that piece of shit in and they have a fit...
i'm with metamechanic...a few white lies are what have gotten all the other professions into the pantheon of "necessary expense"...
although the question is: if what you say is based on supportable facts, even though the true outcome cannot be determined, is it really a lie or just typical business forecasting? i'd say that architects are just finally waking up from their marxist slumber to realize that capital is not necessarily an evil, but a tool. and that good business can be good design...and good design can be good politics...and so on...and so on.....
The question people need to ask is 'what makes architecture valuable?', 'what makes our skills desirable?', and 'what can we do that developers/builders can't?'. The answer is simple: design.
but mbr, how can design be quanitfied? that is the age old issue. the problem is that design as an artful expression of the moment is not a valid economic statement within our current capitalist system. design is currently seen as a fuzzy subjective realm, based on style and personal preference rather than justifications or quanitifiable objectives and achievements. what is design in our current economic-political-social condition? what then is good design or bad design? actually cameron had a thread a little while ago asking this question? .
futureboy - it's all about selling a product, in this case it being our skills as designers. Other fields have no problems doing this. Cars, clothes, even furniture and toys manage to market what is 'good', and what should be desired. What gives validity to the marketing are the critics, ie the newspaper guy (like Muschamp), tv reviews, etc., quantify what is 'good'. This happens in architecture all the time, but it's only us that see it (although with WTC and Dwell, others are FINALLY getting a glimpse!).
I don't think most of us here would have a hard time agreeing on a general 'good' qualification. Not what are favorites are, but who should be put in that ball park. Problem is, there is no more money there, so it just gets dismissed and your average architect can claim as much stature as those that are 'famous', as they are really only famous amongst this profession.
I am not saying that we should promote a 'style', or that what is 'good' should be discarded as quickly as it was declared good, as with other fashions, but we could at least try to give value to what is better. We are possibly the only profession that does not reward the best with a substantial pay increase, which, in turn, elevates the respect and the motivation of the youth to go for it. Maybe then it wouldn't be 70% of the grads leaving the profession.
mdler - 'what makes design valuable', good question, but looking at other fields I'd say passion. If one has passion for the design that they've bought/contracted, then it's worht a lot. Sh*t, look at how people worship cars that are mass produced! Or the sneaker craze with 'custom' pumas (or whatever) going for hundreds! I dont' see why a one off house can't garner that passion and awe. It all comes down to people not 'knowing'.
So that's my thoughts.... I know, age old discussion, but it never seems to get anywhere.
I would suggest that "design" is not the complete answer only part of the equation. I might recommend that as Architects we have a larger view of the entire building process. Everything from financing, design, building, marketing etc etc. as part of that larger perspective I feel we bring , or should bring a more strategic approach to our profession.
What I mean by that is if we have astrong enough comprehension of the entire process we can provide a service which is not just design but a comprehensive approach to acheivng an end goal. Sometimes its design in a very artistic sense but it should also be about understanding building systems where you can plan and stage a phased assembly of buildings that work for a client with a limited budget yet assist him with his image to finance the the rest of the project. I don't think of it clearly as design so much as marketing your services in a way that the client doesn't just see you as the "fluffer".
I have some clients who phone me when they only just have an idea and no site. Its great to brainstorm at that stage to actually create the project and bring it about based on ideas, finances, market conditions, philosophy, fund raising. Way more passion goes into it when you aren't just bringing " design" services to a job. I ask myself what is design and it all the above but the clients are always preplexed by what design is about, too mysitical. If they clearly understand what you can do for them in a broken down articulated fashion they are way more likely to pay your invoice and appreciate the efforts you make.
thanks whistler. that was the clarification to mbr's post i was hoping for.
so the issue then is: if we can provide these services, why do we get the same amount of compensation as your average real estate broker in the deal....how are you dealing with this issue in your practice. I don't have my own practice yet, but am considering how I might deal with this in the future.
this seems to be the defining question of the profession now...
Muschamp is our enemy, not our friend. His editorial of the Dillier + Scofidio retrospective at the Whitney (something to the effect that the 'average man' is too dumb to understand). This is not what we need.
We, as a profession, need to convince those investing in buildings that 'different' isnt necessarily financially 'risky'. It is extremely hard to get a bank to finance a project that they dont think they can turn around and sell if need be.
Muschamp was perhaps a bad example, but he has influence and power with the readers. Dwell is a better example.
Our profession will continue to form niche playing fields where skills become isolated. Designers will design, managers will manage, etc., etc. Some will do everything, but over time that will lessen. I know of several successful firms that have embraced this and are doing very well. Out sourcing will also grow rapidly, as overseas firms prove their worth.
There are simply too many opinions that conflict to have a 'professional stance' on these issues.
futureboy.. I do run the office in a small town so our comments and work appear most everywhere ( good or bad ) and i did use to work for the town more than a decade ago, i know the people in the town hall, the politicians, the real estate people, builders and I think they respect what we try and do. We site on advisory panels and generally get involved ( the beauty of a small town is that you can make a difference, unlike being a small fish in a big ocean we are the big fish in the small pond)
Our office doesn't do the edgest work( keep trying) but I have always had a strong tendancy for being community minded and try to work with the local socil housing group to kick start projects, and influence policy where possible.
Design is great and a ton of fun but being a good architect is lot more about making the place you live a better place ( my view) and waiting for the prime jobs walk through the door just ain't goin' to happen so I choose to try and make them happen or put people together to make them happen. Design ideas are great when translated into reality but really big ideas in a small town don't transpire without someone driving them and we need to be more apart of that when we can
How can we, as a profession, market ourselves to the general public???
How can architecture market itself to the general public??? How can we convince people that we are a group of people who can provide a useful service???
Currently, architecture is a profession for architects. Our publications are read mostly by architects and those in the design profession (Architectural Digest is an exception, but...)
In Cincinnati, I recieve, on a monthly basis, the Cincinnati Home Design Trends magazine. This 'newsletter', put out by the local home builders, shows me all of the current trends in home designs and then gives me a list of people who will build them for me. This is just one example of how the building industry is educating consumers as to what he or she should build.
I propose that architecture needs a spokesperson, and I nominate Brad Pitt. If you did not already know, Brad Pitt (as in the actor, married to Jen) is a huge architecture buff. He was on Charlie Rose a few weeks ago promoting his new movie 'Troy'. At least a third of the program was taken up discussing the new Gehry Disney Hall and the effect that it will have on the city. Pitt has been mentione before as being a huge Gehry fan as well as MVRDV.
There is a reason that companies use celebs to endorse their products. Brad, if you are out there...
hmm....bit off topic, but I remember watching a (don't laugh) Barbara Walters Interview of Pitt, Clooney, Roberts, and the rest of the cast of Ocean's Eleven. At the time of the interview the 9/11 stuff had just happened so Walters asked the cast what they thought about the rebuilding of the WTC and what they thought of a memorial. Pitt went off about rebuilding the towers and he mentioned curtain wall and steel columns and a nuch of other sutff. Julia Roberts responded with "Aren't you the architect!" Off-topic, but interesting nonetheless.
mdler - I like your idea.
Well, I'm not sure if "celebs" are the solution to the problem. I'd rather prefer that architects participated more in public discussions, polemics, open lectures and such. I can also appreciate the swedish version where some newspapers recently have started to write a lot about international architecture and new buildings, and where architects (albeit the most famous ones) appear on television or radio. I've even gotten into discussions about Pei, Calatrava and MVRDV with my family! Swedish architecture is still mediocre though.
What do you think of dwell's announcement to do their own TV show?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/31/DDGFV6T3FC1.DTL
I would say a handful of cheesy-ass syndicates monopolize the representation of design and arch on the tube right now, and a few more true design-advocates need to find ways of recallibrating how arch is pitched to the public over broad mediums like TV. Perhaps architects also need to take a more proactive involvement in the dirt with communities less identified as having any kind of design relationship and do something for them, on both a community level as well as general purpose outreach to bring designers out of their bubble.
there's such a renewed interest in the home right now. the aia should be running commercials on HGTV and putting ads in all those cheesey magazines. people need to know about the benefits of hiring an architect.
it would also help if we would started speaking in ways that the general public could understand instead of using psuedo intellucual archibabble.
bfunk, e-rizzy, I agree with both of you. I currently get a fair amount of my work from a couple of general contractors I have developed relationships with: people call them for a house or addition first, and they (sometimes) recognize the need for an architect and call me....but the bottom line is that the construction industry in general has done more to convince people to call them first (at least when it comes to home design/construction). There are several construction companies around here (Denver area) that have in-house "design" capability which usually translates into a couple of CAD techs, and some guy "designing" the houses, based on the last big monstrosity that was built for a parade of homes. These houses are excessively big, cater to the ostentatious display of wealth, and ignore climate, site, etc. Yet, these companies are building plenty of "product", making lots of money, because the general public is conditioned to call a builder, not call an architect. The AIA's ill advised tv ads a few years ago were a waste of money (my opinion): the same money spent on print ads in local "home design" magazines would have been much more beneficial, I think.
I didnt know that Dwell was going to do a TV show, but it makes sense. The architect that I am currently working with has had many people come to him wanting a 'Dwell' house.
Design is definately becoming more mainstream in all aspects of life, and architecture will catch on at some point.
It will be interresting to see where the whole sustainable thing will go in the mainstream due to our current crisis in the Mideast.
On a completely unrealated topic, the new French Kicks album, Trial of the Century, is brilliant.
PARKER IS THAT YOU?
Damn straight. Architecture is an absurdly elitist profession that fundamentally views itself as an avocation for idle gentlemen and country squires. Doctors and lawyers can get away with this because people NEED them. Nobody sees themselves as needing an architect. If they need anybody, it's a contractor or a builder -- both of whom sell themselves as "blue collar".
Every time "architecture" tries to change itself it does so in order to become MORE elitist, not less. We pile on more and more pointless educational requirements, laboring under the absurd delusion that if we become more selective than doctors and lawyers, we'll also be as well paid.
Guess what? It isn't working. Architecture is so in love with itself that it's slowly wrapping into a tighter and tighter clique that's less and less relevant to the rest of the world. While we prance about and preen ourselves, builders, contractors and engineers are rapidly devouring what's left of "our" market.
The problem is general promotion will not work, and it will certainly not benefit every architect. Unlike law and medicine, it is obvious to most architects that come from a half decent education who is good and who isn't. Most dr.s and lawyers will respect eachother, and not know anything about the other except that they are also in the profession. Do architects do this? Certainly not, and with good reason. Simply put, the percentage of good to bad architects leans heavily in favor of 'bad'. I know, numerous reasons for this and a broad generalization, but it's true, nonetheless.
If architecture was promoted in a typical fashion, builders, developers, and 'designers' of cooky cutter homes would take the market (not that they don't already, but you can bet they'd take over the marketing, if simply by having more $$ to invest).
The best help for architecture that I've seen is through the use in movies, maybe even Brad's discussions, and adds. The Infiniti suv is photographed (probably composited) in front of Diamond Ranch. Bilbao has been in numerous adds and movies, and so forth. If that prompts just one person to want to know 'what' or 'who' about the setting, then that's priceless advertising for good architecture.
It'd be a happy day when the better architects got more cash, based on their talent. Then it would truly be a dream profession.
It seems that the 'bad' guy always has the 'cool' house in the movies. Jackie Treehorn in Lebowski, the yuppies in x-mas vacation, Bueller's friend in Ferris Bueller, etc.
MrBaboon: well said! Architects spend more time trying to impress other architects than most any other profession. Very few potential clients care about our archibabble semantic posturing.
trace: I agree that general exposure advertising is not terribly effective. The use of "trendy" buildings in movies and tv is helpful, but still has it's limits. (remember Miami Vice/Architectonica apt building?) Lawyers and doctors and dentists are necessary, so they prosper. Architects are not legally necessary for single family housing in most places: I doubt if that will change soon, although it would certainly help.
It may be that the general public first of all has little understanding what architects do. Second, They rather devote their finances to something other than thougthful planning. Or some just think that all we do is scribble out some ideas and send them a huge bill. Not realizing how much time and energy even a "simple addition" requires. Builders could possibly be the biggest problem with this. Builders on our projects think they understand how to design. So theres alot of delibration amongst the trades of whats good a bad about a project. Therefore, later on they will promote the idea that we simply aren't needed when someone they know has a design project They will attempt to take it on themselves. For example today I got a call from a builder who suggested that he would do all the drawings for a residential project and I would help him by providing framing sizes. And that I was needed to consult on aesthetic issues. I'm not saying he wasn't capable of designing the project only that this is a common mindset out there. My reaction was for him to stick what he does best .. building and I would stick to what I do best. Then I turned down the job.
Architects are elitest mainly because we desire respect. Next, because we are educated to beleve we are the only ones who can design. We are the snobs of the construction industry. And by that we automatically distance ourselves from the majority. The profession needs to evolve.
We need an organized political voice. We need to prove to law makers that good design is necessary to society. There are half hearted attempts to ensure good design: zoning laws and design review committees, but they don't work. The only option is to REVOLT.
Who wants to work for SUV driving, beer drinking, TV addicted monads? Wouldn't you rather work for the educated and monied elite?
Revort against who, against what? Against the law makers?
Basically our options are limited to :
(1) POLITICAL ACTION making it legally required to have an architect on building projects or
(2) SOCIAL EDUCATION convincing our clients (anyone who builds something) that what we bring is worth thier time and money.
This brings up an interesting question? Why don't most people care if thier house 'sucks' or if thier urban environment is well designed? It clearly doesn't bother people . . .
BTW, the amount of worthwhile constructive discussions have multiplied 10fold since the new site was launched. More kudos to Paul et all.
MrBaboon
Damn tootin’. Architecture is Excessive.
It’s not just that “Nobody sees themselves as needing an architect.â€. They in fact don’t need an architect.
Their “need†of doctors and lawyers is really a social construct, but it’s one that exists. There are of course certain types of projects with similar social constructs on which an architect is in fact required to participate. But not in the home building industry.
Architecture is a luxury. It is not a necessity. Frank Lloyd Wright said something to the effect of “give me the luxuries of life and I will gladly do without the necessities†as in if I can have fine wine and veal, you can keep your grain and water.
I also feel compelled to point out that this “encroachment†of homebuilders taking away “architects†work, is well… not true. If you look back in history have been the servants of the wealthy; Palladio’s Villa Capra-Rotunda wasn’t exactly a home for the peasants. They’re not taking anything from us. It’s a segment of building that never really was the territory of architects.
At some level I would argue that homebuilding as we are talking about it (as in NOT the Villa Capra-Rotunda, Lila Savoy) by builders, is vernacular building (and is proceeding in much the fashion that it has throughout most of history), and one could argue, sort of by definition, isn’t even architecture (Now before anyone lays into me on this one I think I should clarify that I’m all about housing.).
That’s not to say that architects don’t have something to offer to people who don’t NEED them. It’s not that architects couldn’t do a better job than the builders (at certain levels), and certainly housing developments have huge implications to how our cities develop and the “freedom†for profit developers are being given effectively has them planning our cities for us... which is probably not the best situation. So certainly homebuilding has huge implications for architecture. I just wanted to point out, that it’s sort of… not architecture (of course one has to define what architecture is and what its’ role within society is and what it’s doing culturally). Now if that means I’m not doing “Architecture†well that’s just fine by me.
In regards to Brad Pitt, our office was considering sending a care package to the new intern at Gehrys office. Any suggestions as to what we should include? (we meant to do this a while ago, but better late then never)
Olfas?
Hot Glue Gun?
Selected Eisenman Essays?
Damn that was a long post... which really has nothing to do with marketing ourselves to the general public...sorry...
The problem seems to be that there are a lot of different kinds of architects out there. Pragmatic builders and theorists all fit under the same umbrella. Maybe the thing to do, should we want to promote our trade to the public, would be to shatter this monolith, and start training a small amount of conceptual wizards and a bigger percentage of people educated in facts and figures concerning building as well as peoples needs and expectations.
The pragmatists would make themselves useful for the public, having a short education, no babble and minimum theory. And they would share most of the values of their mundane clients.
On the other hand, we always need to train our Archinauts to explore the road unknown, but these are the ones the public really doesn't want to know about. Even if Brad would.
its really a fact that we architects are not that famous in the local people that's why the problem has been created, that we are not able to explain people tha twe can really help them in creating their premises. Solution is probably to work more towards local audiances, arranging exhibitions of our work for local people(has to be proper for them to understand, not merely 2d dwgs.), internet can be used for such things,and finally i think we should not think of ourselves as out of the world, rather a part of the society, and must be in touch with the same.
Don't you think Tyler Durden would be anti-Architecture? I mean, architecture is a commodity like anything else and would fall under the anti-consumerism mantra of Fight Club.
We could have office brawls every Friday...
I truly believe that architecture, at least good architecture is needed. This is the same with 'good' lawyers and doctors. Where architecture fails and they succeed is that they've made it their business to be needed. But our profession has the unique ability to impact society beyond our life times.
Does law have to be so difficult to do simple things? No way, but who would benefit from a simplification? Us poor folk who don't pay any lobbiests or officials. Same with regular MDs. Do I need a doctor to prescribe some extra strength tylenol? No, a registered nurse can write prescriptions and their salaries are about a 1/4 of a MDs. But it's become acceptable and we expect to have our doc write them, and our insurance pay them (another cog in the money sucking machine). It's all business.
Architects typically suck at business and that's why our profession is vanishing.
psycho-mullet: good post, great point about the historical role of architects...rich clients and all that. absolutely correct. Problem arises in today's (presumed) egalitarian society....we tend to want to embrace the notion of serving the "people" (the poor, disenfranchised, downtrodden masses) (no sarcasm intended) while we really, deep down inside, (putting on my psycho babble hat) want to be part of that intellectual artistic elite and enjoy the wine and veal as Frank did. So we rail against developers/home builders since they pull so many permits, build so much, with very limited input from architects....all the time we wish we were getting the commission to design the new musuems....even as the local "elite" community members who populate the architect selection committees feel a need to select an architect from abroad in order to obtain a "leading edge" building. (Denver just fell for this, not once, but twice, basically slapping the local architectural community in the face, saying in effect that nobody in Denver could possibly be good enough to design a museum.) Once again, we as architects work to construct the myth of some intellectual elite avant garde "designer", only to fall victim to it. Go figure.
I dont think relying on the attention of 'starchitect' projects and hollywoodized publicity is a good strategy to relay the essence of architecture to the average consumer market. Sure that attention does its part but it only confirms architecutre as something "unattainable", "only in the movies", of pertaining to the god-realms of the biggest names, it does verry little to entice the public with an understanding of the sensible common day applicability of the industry to their own lives. In fact I think they are these very stratified depictions of arch which keeps the general public from ever really considering architecture beyond the notion of zillion dollar projects and make-things of the rich. It is the very notion of these zillion dollar projects which spread the capital in the industry so inequally. There has to be a more direct contact approach taken, something to offer a personability up front with the general public. Architects need to get out and meet communities, serve the educational process more but on a less academic scale and more for the purpose of general outreach, education at all levels. Greater roles in local politics, more intimate partnerships with smaller homebuyer organizations, some form of activism needs to guide the approach rather than just more clever marketing or higher pop culture visibilty through psuedo-notions put forth by Cinema. But it's all been said before. I saw this and thought it was maybe more exemplary of the types of approach architects should be investigating.
Architects aim to raise £120,000 for Shelter during Architecture Week 2004
"Would you love to have professional advice about your house but have been too afraid to ask? Are you looking to adapt your home for an expanding family? Are you considering building an extension or converting your attic? Find out what an architect can do for you!
RIBA Architect in the House is the annual event, organised by the Royal Institute of British Architects, which partners members of the public with architects throughout the country - to discuss the design potential of their homes in return for a donation to Shelter.
The initiative is taking place as part of Architecture Week, the annual national celebration of architecture from 18 – 27 June 2004.
http://www.riba.org/go/RIBA/News/Press_3071.html
I think the Fight Club thing may work as long as we all end the day with a Pixies song
Architecture for Humanity is really helping in this role. Of bringing the idea of design to the mass market. Many cities have started "meetups" centered around getting architects active in their communities and in teaching the values of design in tackling social issues. check out Architecture for Humanity's website. I'm involved in the New York group and we are already undertaking projects with two community arts groups and are becoming involved with an event in Cincinnati, Ohio. If you want to know more, check out the AFH New York website
www.afhny.org
I agree with bfunk that the first steps toward promoting and marketing the profession is improving the accessibility of our services and knowledge base to the general public.
I think we should start marketing our services to children. They have the strongest leverage in the buying habits of thier parents (this is why Sponge Bob is used to sell mini-vans). Make the kids want to live in cool houses.
It worked with the Brady Bunch; When I was younger, I thought that if I became an architect, I would be hanging out with the likes of Marcia Brady
as one who has taken my share of marketing classes mdler is on the right track. If we are going to truly market architecture to the 'masses' we need to go after children and the young adult crowd. Sadly, they don't have the $$$ to pay us those fat commisions we all want.
There are so many good ideas on this post I don't want to echo what has already been said.
I think a major problem with the profession of architecture is the 'get rich quick' giant consumerism society that the west has become. Think about it, good architecture is a costly investment. I've had clients seriously say they don't want to pay for 'good design' because they have no intentions on 'holding onto' this building.
To market the profession and rally against this build it fast and cheap mentality Tyler Durden might be the right spokesperson. He could talk about destroying the shopping malls and Wal-Mart stores and replacing them with something significant.
A serious marketing campaign in the mainstream media cannot hurt. My only question would be who the hell is going to pay for it? Can the AIA get federal matching funds?
can the AIA do anything???
Maybe Tyler should start by using his fight club to kick the AIA's ass into gear.
I didnt read everyone's comments so this may have already been stated.
The problem with promoting architecture is that it is an expensive thing for the general public to acquire. The general public cannot affoard "architecture" and that is why shows that market do-it-yourself work are so favorable. Shows like trading spaces, while you were out, etc. show quick, cheap ways to spice up your home. Therefore if we, as architects could provide the general public with buildings that are inexpensive we might have a shot.
However, Architecture is to home design as Chanel, Louis Vuitton, etc are to fashion. In other words, there are many levels of homes as there are varity within the fashion world. A home can be, build-it-yourself, track home, home designed by person without architect, with architect, etc. So the questions becomes, are you willing, with all your ego, pride, hard work over the years, etc. to let go what you hold closely in order to strive towards an architecture that parallels that of Gap in clothing design? Sure there are great work that has been done with a minimal budget, but how many of us would feel that much pleasure from doing that? What I mean is that it seems that today, most architects/students are interested in buildings that would be very much over the amount of money the average citizen of the United States would acquire in a lifetime. Also how much inexpensive architecture has been photographed and accepted by the general public?
I think that if we are ever going to change America's attitude toward architecture, we have to search for more value in the things that we do on a regular basis. For example, less fast food (it's cheap but aint great), no more price club/sam's club, less bargain deals all around. Once the general public feels comfortable spending more money for better quality, then it will become much easier for architects to persuade them to take on their design.
anyways that's my two cents.
Why does Architecture with a capital A need to be so expensive???
Well, what I think tman and I were getting at is that, by definition (mine), the ambitions of architecture (like fashion) are more than providing the most basic shelter. Like Louis Vuitton architecture is "excessive" it is a luxury, and like Louis Vuitton, by doing more than providing the most basic of shelter, it's likely going to cost more.
And in simple economic scales, architecture is custom, mass productions (builder homes) spreads design costs across many units rendering design costs infinitesimal.
At some level it's architects own fault for not engaging the subject. But the whole mass production/customization and architecutre is a whole other discussion.
thanks for clarifying things, and btw, I didnt even read your posts so we must be thinking similarly. Maybe we should work together? JK
the AIA needs to work harder to set higher market standards for design fees and design quality.
more design quality would then create more demand.
But you forget that most architects do not do quality design, and by promoting it, the AIA would essentially alienate the majority of their members.
The AIA could do something, though. Or at least one would think they could.
Hey,
dont diss the AIA. They give their members cool lapel pins
"Is that a PLEDGE PIN on your UNIFORM?!"
I think we should stop banging our heads against the wall on this issue. Nothing will ever change. Defeatist, I know, but the reality is that America will never have a favorable opinion of the arts - architecture being an art - and that is the difference between us Americans and Europeans. They look favorably towards design, appreciate what design can do in all aspects of life and have managed to integrate that appreciation into European life.
Americans have no problem paying 10,000 for a plasma tv, but give them a fee for the home to put that piece of shit in and they have a fit...
i'm with metamechanic...a few white lies are what have gotten all the other professions into the pantheon of "necessary expense"...
although the question is: if what you say is based on supportable facts, even though the true outcome cannot be determined, is it really a lie or just typical business forecasting? i'd say that architects are just finally waking up from their marxist slumber to realize that capital is not necessarily an evil, but a tool. and that good business can be good design...and good design can be good politics...and so on...and so on.....
The question people need to ask is 'what makes architecture valuable?', 'what makes our skills desirable?', and 'what can we do that developers/builders can't?'. The answer is simple: design.
but mbr, how can design be quanitfied? that is the age old issue. the problem is that design as an artful expression of the moment is not a valid economic statement within our current capitalist system. design is currently seen as a fuzzy subjective realm, based on style and personal preference rather than justifications or quanitifiable objectives and achievements. what is design in our current economic-political-social condition? what then is good design or bad design? actually cameron had a thread a little while ago asking this question? .
The question people need to ask is 'what makes design valuable?', 'what makes our design skills desirable?'
futureboy - it's all about selling a product, in this case it being our skills as designers. Other fields have no problems doing this. Cars, clothes, even furniture and toys manage to market what is 'good', and what should be desired. What gives validity to the marketing are the critics, ie the newspaper guy (like Muschamp), tv reviews, etc., quantify what is 'good'. This happens in architecture all the time, but it's only us that see it (although with WTC and Dwell, others are FINALLY getting a glimpse!).
I don't think most of us here would have a hard time agreeing on a general 'good' qualification. Not what are favorites are, but who should be put in that ball park. Problem is, there is no more money there, so it just gets dismissed and your average architect can claim as much stature as those that are 'famous', as they are really only famous amongst this profession.
I am not saying that we should promote a 'style', or that what is 'good' should be discarded as quickly as it was declared good, as with other fashions, but we could at least try to give value to what is better. We are possibly the only profession that does not reward the best with a substantial pay increase, which, in turn, elevates the respect and the motivation of the youth to go for it. Maybe then it wouldn't be 70% of the grads leaving the profession.
mdler - 'what makes design valuable', good question, but looking at other fields I'd say passion. If one has passion for the design that they've bought/contracted, then it's worht a lot. Sh*t, look at how people worship cars that are mass produced! Or the sneaker craze with 'custom' pumas (or whatever) going for hundreds! I dont' see why a one off house can't garner that passion and awe. It all comes down to people not 'knowing'.
So that's my thoughts.... I know, age old discussion, but it never seems to get anywhere.
I would suggest that "design" is not the complete answer only part of the equation. I might recommend that as Architects we have a larger view of the entire building process. Everything from financing, design, building, marketing etc etc. as part of that larger perspective I feel we bring , or should bring a more strategic approach to our profession.
What I mean by that is if we have astrong enough comprehension of the entire process we can provide a service which is not just design but a comprehensive approach to acheivng an end goal. Sometimes its design in a very artistic sense but it should also be about understanding building systems where you can plan and stage a phased assembly of buildings that work for a client with a limited budget yet assist him with his image to finance the the rest of the project. I don't think of it clearly as design so much as marketing your services in a way that the client doesn't just see you as the "fluffer".
I have some clients who phone me when they only just have an idea and no site. Its great to brainstorm at that stage to actually create the project and bring it about based on ideas, finances, market conditions, philosophy, fund raising. Way more passion goes into it when you aren't just bringing " design" services to a job. I ask myself what is design and it all the above but the clients are always preplexed by what design is about, too mysitical. If they clearly understand what you can do for them in a broken down articulated fashion they are way more likely to pay your invoice and appreciate the efforts you make.
thanks whistler. that was the clarification to mbr's post i was hoping for.
so the issue then is: if we can provide these services, why do we get the same amount of compensation as your average real estate broker in the deal....how are you dealing with this issue in your practice. I don't have my own practice yet, but am considering how I might deal with this in the future.
this seems to be the defining question of the profession now...
Muschamp is our enemy, not our friend. His editorial of the Dillier + Scofidio retrospective at the Whitney (something to the effect that the 'average man' is too dumb to understand). This is not what we need.
We, as a profession, need to convince those investing in buildings that 'different' isnt necessarily financially 'risky'. It is extremely hard to get a bank to finance a project that they dont think they can turn around and sell if need be.
Muschamp was perhaps a bad example, but he has influence and power with the readers. Dwell is a better example.
Our profession will continue to form niche playing fields where skills become isolated. Designers will design, managers will manage, etc., etc. Some will do everything, but over time that will lessen. I know of several successful firms that have embraced this and are doing very well. Out sourcing will also grow rapidly, as overseas firms prove their worth.
There are simply too many opinions that conflict to have a 'professional stance' on these issues.
futureboy.. I do run the office in a small town so our comments and work appear most everywhere ( good or bad ) and i did use to work for the town more than a decade ago, i know the people in the town hall, the politicians, the real estate people, builders and I think they respect what we try and do. We site on advisory panels and generally get involved ( the beauty of a small town is that you can make a difference, unlike being a small fish in a big ocean we are the big fish in the small pond)
Our office doesn't do the edgest work( keep trying) but I have always had a strong tendancy for being community minded and try to work with the local socil housing group to kick start projects, and influence policy where possible.
Design is great and a ton of fun but being a good architect is lot more about making the place you live a better place ( my view) and waiting for the prime jobs walk through the door just ain't goin' to happen so I choose to try and make them happen or put people together to make them happen. Design ideas are great when translated into reality but really big ideas in a small town don't transpire without someone driving them and we need to be more apart of that when we can
is this whistler, as in adam? ever work for czysz?
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.