how 'bout retail outlets that sell designs as product. this would once and for all remove the AIA from dealings with what we do, and introduce what we do to a wider audience. the nederlands, for example, has their architecture centers, which may or may not treat architecture as product. i am speaking of something in between the architecture centers and, say, a good book or cd store.
a consumer driven culture will inherently shop in a "retail" store, even if only design related. Call it design by consignment. It'll give the young guys a chance to market themselves in a cool, stylish environment. You sell graphics, models, prints, anything that gets people in their to view the greater vision of the independent collaborators. combine with food, music, coffee, etc.
I'll be applying for my permit real soon.
Remember: A nation of consumers wants a place to shop and buy things.
interesting thought. the huge divide that separates architecture from other products like cars,etc. is its immobility (mobile home excepted). The "local" solution is not one which is typically part of global corporate products. It is something that keeps architectural design from meeting the "luxury" branding of a lexus, etc. as status symbol...except when you consider the star system. the use of a star is to "luxury" branding as a specially designed and tailored armani suit is to a store bought one. I guess the divide is that john q. public doesn't go into armani asking for a specially designed suit, just like he doesn't go into an architecture office to see what potential design he could purchase. product is king and the accessibility of the typical developer tract is its visibility and comfort factor. someone understands what they will receive much like a big mac at mcdonalds, bland but uncompromised by local conditions. is this a market that architecture or architectural design can withstand inclusion within?
It sure can. Look at Dwell, it's all about the prefab, marketing, and selling. A product that is made over and over, and, potentially, passing on the discounts possible by mass production. I could see a 'store' that had these 'products' for purchase. Maybe even little trinkets, like models, prints, etc. Seems pretty cool, and it'd be accessible to all. I wouldn't doubt a Dwell store in the very near future.
I would argue, in most cases, mass consumer products aren't really high design though.
People shop at places thike the GAP, Target and Mervins, the architectural equivelant of which isn't far from current homebuilding. So I'm not sure that that's the best model, if the current form of high architecture is what you are trying to sell.
I'm a huge car freak, so the automotive industry has alwasy intrigued me. And as much as we all seem to admire cars it's kind of funny how conventiona they are. In order to produce the number of units car manufacturers do they are essentailly forced to use particular manufacturing process.There are hughe conformations that automotive desiigners have to accept due to the manufactureing process dictated by the number of units they sell. Futher the drivetrains are all quite similr, the fact that basically all cars use internal comustion engines plays a big factor in the form they take.
The only really unconventional cars with really fun designs being produced are the aars being built in limited numbers, becasue they are able to access different methods of production; manufacturers like TVR and Ferrari, and limited production number cars Corvette and Viper. And even these don't stray that far from the more pedestrian machines.
Another big difference between buildings and most consumer products (in addition to mobility) is the scale and cost.
I guess I'm not sure what I'm trying to argue for here, but I guess I should clarify that I'm not suggesting mass produced products can't be well designed, because in many respects I think they may be (or have certain opportunities to be) better deigned. I guess I just suggesting there is a bit of a distinction between the ambitions of a well designed mass produced products and what most architects are trying to do culturally or even experientially.
While a dwell home might increase people awareness of what architects do at some level, I'm still not sure there're going to be able to access the work or say Lebbeus Woods, Eisenmen, CoopHimmelblau, or even Morphosis:
While we all know the dangers of annonamous discussion forums I still find the reactions of non-architects to these propals quite interesting (as well as entertaining).
I am huge Coop Himmelblau fan, and have been for many years, but that one is pretty odd.
Psycho - I'd argue that architecture is, in some ways, very similar to automotive design. If anything, they are pushing one offs further by making one offs that make it to production, then the technology trickles down to the mainstream (look at all aluminum cars, carbon fiber, semi automatic transmissions, etc. - all made #1 for performance, but with the idea to refine it, bring costs down, then mass produce).
Architecture SHOULD look at this. We have the same limitations as those making concept cars - existing technologies and materials. But where they go further is they try something new, knowing it can be done over time, for a reasonable fee. The construction industry has not pushed any kind of development, so us architects don't push anything (with a few exceptions, like Gehry's tech firm that could make a big difference).
The only side that is progressing is the prefab arena. They are taking existing technologies (as many homes are made prefab, they are just ugly), and refining them, testing the boundaries, etc, in the hopes that their will be more options at less costs down the line.
If architecture could at least evolve the technologies used and the manufacturing process, then we could push design farther, knowing that it will pay off down the line. Right now, everything is a one off, built, then forgotten.
If we thought like product designers or automotive designer, where great design can make more money down the line, as things progress from one offs to mass production, then perhaps good architects would make more money, and make more of a difference.
I wasn't trying to comment on coophimmelblau's work (there are links there to the other entrys) but I thought the non architects reaction to the work was quite interesting.
There's actually a pretty good article in (I cant remember if it was in European Car, or CAR) a few months back that was a panel discussion amongst all the automotive design heavyweights (Bangle, Freeman, Jay Mays, etc.) that was pretty interesting, among other things they were discussing all the retro designs comming out.
Stamped unibody construction (the way 99% of the cars on the market are manufactured) has HUGHE design implications. If you want to do big swoopy curves you can't really do it with stmped metal, it has to be GRP however this generally means it has to be hand laid, which means it has to be done in small numbers, hence the only cars that have these forms are Laborgini's, Ferrari's, TVR's, etc. No cars go into production without being designed with very specific knowledge of the process that will be used to manufacture it.
I guess my poit is Automotive designers (even in school) are adhereing very strictly to all sorts of conventions dictated by saftey requirements and manufatureing process, all of which have huge and limiting design implications. I don't nessecarily think that's bad, just needs to be noted. I guess that was partly why I mentioned that aticle, they started to touch on that and of course their inevitable frusteration with such things, and of course why manufacturers like TVR are so fun to work for as a designer.
Who has a custom deisgned car? Buying 22in spinners for your navigator doen't make it that personal. People are given a limited number of options (which aren't castly differnet, color of interio, color of exterior, rdio or not, 17 or 18in wheels) and they think they've got car that' all their own. It's kind of funny. And not that different than the way home builders work. Though designers are sadly out of the equation inhojme buiding...
Architects utilze mass production with every single project they do, just at a slightly differnet scale. The building it's self is not mass produced, but almsot every component (2x4's, nails, sinks, even) is a mass produced product. I just lost my train of thought...
Oh and I'll go in on that dwell franchise with you ;)
"mass customization" is the concept being discussed here. it's not mass produced, but rather modulor, in which the consumer can choose components and assemble them to their liking. A book called refabricating architecture discusses (albeit only in concept) the advantages and limitations to architectural building within the automotive industry's framework. I think there is a hell of a lot to learn here, and this "architecture as product" idea fits right into what this book talks about. (Production based architecture lures the public into a discussion of general architecture, which in turn can lead to discussions of much more sophisticated design ideas.)
Mass customized products will be the odds on choice of evolving out of a "brand loyal" consumer to "personal loyalty", i.e. individuality. This new phase of our economy will, in turn, begin to accept buildings. The dwell thing is basically mass customization. you have a module from which you add and subtract creating your own piece of design. Take that and mix it with the sheer enjoyment our culutre derives from experiencing consumption, and you will have a taylor made retail environment that will begin to communicate to the public.
someone above mentioned that this idea doesn't teach people about what Lebbeus, eisenman, and coop (for example) are up to. no, not really, but what it does do is draw them into a space where architectural ideas exist in the environment, and the user picks and chooses what they feel is worthy of a look. Call it education through consumption, or something to that effect.
I know mass customization is what we're talking about, I've just heard the term thrwon around with far too much frequency and more as a ploy then really engaging the idea. Weather it's customizable, it's still mas produced, and has to deal with those implications. Mass customization is just understanding how many units you are producing, ecenomically whcih technique you must use, and given that technique and it's production limitatins how many variations it will allow. It's not fundamentally different than mass producitons, it's really just "smart mass productino". It's just such a trendy buzzword that I try to avaoid it. I agree we could learn alot from it.
However teh "personal loyalty" that I've seen from mass customization so far has been fairly week. Hopefully that will inprove. I will say that Gregg Lynn's 40,000 teapot variations we're impressive. However I don't know how much they cost, and therefore how accessible they were. And the specificty with whcih he had contorl over the parameters seemed to ammount to formal variations, variations which had no real useful differnece, simply that they were different. I'm not sure how useful that is (assuming I understood the project coreectly...).
However this isn't vastly different than FLW's textile block ideas or Corbu's Maison Domino, or The Eames, or or or... it's like the modernist dream, but we still haven't quite made it. New manufactureing process may lead the way.
But like I said I'd argue that builders sort of are doing mass customization. Why there aren't more well designerd builder homes? I'm not sure.
There will be. It's kind of like the tail leading the dog. Developers pursue opporutinities based on risk. If the market wants ugly homes, that's what they give them. Problem is, the market wants what it sees (like man, I was so sure I could not live without a 911 Turbo when I lived in LA! One on every corner), and it sees ugly homes.
Eventually, hopefully, there will be a leap and people will 'see' better homes, not larger, and want them. Then the developers will make them.
This is nothing new, it's just that the means by which to reach people are new (Dwell, this forum, etc.). There is the techology, it's just in the wrong hands!
So, yeah, how about that franchise! It'd be pretty cool to have store with all the goodies - furniture, prints, homes...
I should note that not all devlopers see things that way. I know of at least a few that have a real vision, something pretty inspiring, and they know how to make money, which is also inspiring!
i think in the world of academia architecture students need to focus on taking cognates in other fields, related or not. i did some in civil engineering and found it rather enlightening. if people got minors in business, marketing, or even social work, in addition to related fields, it would probably help us all out in the long run. it would be nice if architecture programs began to encourage this type of behavior.
I actually do have a minor in business :) Maybe that's why I am not taking the traditional path!
Hmmm, starting....that's the tough part, eh? I am working on that, both from a developer/architect side as well as the product side, but it's just the beginning.
If anyone has ideas, I'd love to hear them. I would certainly be interested in dicussing things. I've got a few kicking around and it would be great to get some kind of network established.
I am a bit concerned about the idea of selling architecture in a retail environment. Right now, the consensus is that architects are underpaid, under appreciated, and a bit mysterious with all of their archy-speak. I think selling architecture for the masses in the retail environment would bring attention to architecture, perhaps even make it more understandable, although I do not think the average architecture graduate would benefit much from it. Like Armani suits, I can only imagine hundreds of thousands of little Grehy houses, with different colours of titanium to suit the average Joe’s taste. There needs to be a way of informing the consumer about custom design, and the economical impacts that come along with it. Environmental design, as an example, saves money and power. I think we should market these aspects of architecture, especially during a time when people are becoming increasingly aware of power and electricity usage… recalling last year’s blackout as well as increasing smog in our cities.
Anyway is the whole retail shebang not just the average builders strategy, except sticking it in a mall, and having some architect design it.... with style.
Well we're sort of going round in circles here, but I guess I'll say it again; I don't think builders are our competition. And if I wanted to play devils advocate I'd argue that it's not architecture. If we we're to get involved in home building we'd simply be designers esigning the homes, working for the builders, not competing with them. At the most they've just eliminated one of the middle men. But like I said way above, it's a segment of builging that was never the territory of architects.
Don't get me worng it's a pie that I'd like a piece of.
But what do you call the prefab homes? The aren't 'builder' homes, per se, because there is not really much site work done. Would you call that factory the builder?
I think there is opportunity for architecture to expand, but it can't be thought of the same as building a million+ house in BHills. It's a different market with different rules. If architecuture is to survive, it must not only expand but embrace opportunities. I think this is where some of the fundamental problems are, not many architects want to change (at least the way they do business).
erizzy: 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.
Especially considering the reactions to the results on renovation TV shows.
it would also help if we would started speaking in ways that the general public could understand instead of using psuedo intellucual archibabble
doh! ArchiBubblians might have fun making 'Archibabble', but I can't read it.
Forget the AIA, they will die as will the need for licensure (of which, there is none). Invest in Dwell. They are addressing the everyday person, wich is the mass market, with attainable goods (sometimes, anyway). That's simple marketing.
Architecture will die if people refuse to adapt. Not all architects make nice buildings and not all builders make bad architecture.
Buy a full page Ad in Dwell magazine..it about the only connection these days. Or become the next Michael Graves or Tod Oldham...it's about the only thing palettable to the Gen Pub. And that's not very promising. You almost need to be an architect or formally trained in the arts to appreciate architecture. Money and taste are inversely proportional.
" How can we, as a profession, market ourselves to the general public???"
... Now there's a loaded question!
Though I'm tempted to say, asides from priceless contacts that are PRE-selected and all about financial backing, (and possibly some wall to wall commando style marketing for that same target group), I'd say you can't squeeze much else from a lemon tree.
(Though I am an optimist, let me get back to you on that. I'd like to solve this one!)
Again, it comes down to what we as a profession decide to sell ourselves on.
Doctors typically are no more necessary, but they affect the person's most intimate possession...themselves. likewise that is how attorneys do the same. you value your freedom, your money, your livelihood, those concepts which become inextricable from one's person or conception of themselves as a person. what is keeping architects from doing the same. what are we doing wrong in the way we are selling ourselves. how do we do it, but make it personal?
It is a shame that architecture (esp. architectural education) is now so removed from building good functional places for people to live and work and is instead focused on more and more abstract theoreticals.
Yeah, what a shame that buildings take on meaning and inspire larger theoretical discourse. I hate it when you start out with a simple idea like trying to stay dry and it gets all mucked up by smart ass people who ascribe larger more complex thoughts to what that means.
Theoretical discourse doesn't get people a cheaper, better-made or more comfortable house. It gets them an ugly facade that's out of style by the end of the week, and depresses the value of their home by the end of the month.
Lived in italy for a while...over there the general public IS into architecture . And unlike the rest of the world its not just starchitects and archi-fashion which gets all the attention, it covers the whole range of architecture...there's an endless amount of Italian architectural magazines and websites.
So maybe we should investigate this Italian phenomenon and try to figure out why the Italian general public is intrerested in architecture and use this knowledge spread this interest throughout the world.
are we assuming that theory=linguistic interpretation?
No. Theory, as I am using it, encompasses things like:
"locating architecture's intellectual project within the historical matrix of the bourgeois metropolis in an effort to undermine the ruling phallogocentric ego-paradigm as it relates to capitalist historicity"
...in other words, pseudo-philosophy which happens to be tangentially related to buildings. It doesn't help anyone create a better building; it achieves nothing except insofar as it helps the author get another publication on his/her resume.
No, my problem is with purely academic discourse that achieves nothing & helps nobody. Writing an article about how "the architecture of the future will dissolve interpersonal boundaries and create a transnational superstate founded on the concept of circular rather than angular matrices" does nothing.
Pseudophilosophy is, as I have said, intellectual wankery. It might feel good, but it doesn't really do anyone ELSE any good. Great, someone can manipulate fancy words. Fabulous, I hope it was enjoyable.
If architectural theory spent more time thinking about construction techniques and funding basic research, THEN it might have something to contribute. Providing phrases for critics to sling around isn't much of a contribution.
rutger, sorry about the late reply, i just read it.
i kinda differ with your view about the relationship between italy and architecture...we dont build, and we dont care, really. very little architectural scene (aprt from milan) due to lack of commissions and avanguard.
after reading most of these posts, i think the problem is obvious. granted better marketing would be a positive aspect for the profession, but i believe the problem lies with contractors. they've been able to 'steal' clients from us architects. they have marketed themselves and being able to design-build instead of purely build. you ask most laymen what an architect does. often times they say we 'build' things...not design. so they look at an architect and contractor not as two entities but one. since architects can't build, they go to contractors to get the 'two-in-one' package deal instead. contractors have created the mindset of why bother with the middleman aka architect.
our response should be taking away the contractors ability to 'design'. why should they be allowed to 'design' buildings? we need to push the fact that we, as architects, not only design for aesthetic reasons, but for more importantly environment reasons. the concept of sustainable design...orientation, lighting, quality air, ultimately qualtiy of life, etc. should be of great importance to government officials, whom have the power to tell contractors that they have no legal right in designing buildings. that's what architects are for and thats why they must earn their license. this way when people want something built, they're forced to hire an architect and for good reason.
we need to get out of the elitist mindset and stop waiting for people to come to us, but rather force them there. we are obviously not all the hype we think we are. so it's time to do something about it, set the pride aside.
they live for the slow, evolving flow of life in city or town, and architecture is a huge part of it.. plus hang out in any piazza in italy, and you'd have to be blind to not understand that they are all about style of clothes, of expression, of everything.
The authors of these articles believe that they are doing the profession a favor by making architects appear smarter that the general public; alienating potential clients
soleproprietornow 06/02/04 11:20
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) [or, no sarcasm intended toward those with this goal?]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. [1] So we rail against developers/home builders since
[snip]
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 think designers (and builders) can strive to produce incredible amazing design for mass consumption. Some people argue against progressive design, by pointing out cookie cutter's sales success. They call this the 'wisdom of market demand'. But this the PC defense of laziness. Not many customers are able to predict their level of satisfaction as it will exist 20 years forward. And the marketer's don't truly concern themselves with future satisfaction/benefits of the customer.
I doubt a marketer can lead customers/users to more beneficial product than can a designer. Marketers tend to shortcut the process of finding a solution for users. Simile: adopting a diet of pure aspartame, because the taste buds like aspartame's sweetness.
[1] The wine&pate-set pukes me out. If any of them wants me as a designer, they'd better enjoy paying a lot for their masochism :-) However, I'm certainly aware that the overpaid control most of the dinero.
Skipping the lengthy pros(e) & (un)cons(sciousness), we can summarize: No one claimed that virtue was an easy goal.
----
the above could use some editing, but i've got other things to do :-)
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)
send him your name and address ,so h'ell spell it correctly on the US$300k check h'es supposed to mail to you
How can we, as a profession, market ourselves to the general public???
to answer the initial question, get brad pitt to market it...i refer you to the above mentioned thread
archigrl...nope
how 'bout treating architecture as product.
how 'bout retail outlets that sell designs as product. this would once and for all remove the AIA from dealings with what we do, and introduce what we do to a wider audience. the nederlands, for example, has their architecture centers, which may or may not treat architecture as product. i am speaking of something in between the architecture centers and, say, a good book or cd store.
a consumer driven culture will inherently shop in a "retail" store, even if only design related. Call it design by consignment. It'll give the young guys a chance to market themselves in a cool, stylish environment. You sell graphics, models, prints, anything that gets people in their to view the greater vision of the independent collaborators. combine with food, music, coffee, etc.
I'll be applying for my permit real soon.
Remember: A nation of consumers wants a place to shop and buy things.
interesting thought. the huge divide that separates architecture from other products like cars,etc. is its immobility (mobile home excepted). The "local" solution is not one which is typically part of global corporate products. It is something that keeps architectural design from meeting the "luxury" branding of a lexus, etc. as status symbol...except when you consider the star system. the use of a star is to "luxury" branding as a specially designed and tailored armani suit is to a store bought one. I guess the divide is that john q. public doesn't go into armani asking for a specially designed suit, just like he doesn't go into an architecture office to see what potential design he could purchase. product is king and the accessibility of the typical developer tract is its visibility and comfort factor. someone understands what they will receive much like a big mac at mcdonalds, bland but uncompromised by local conditions. is this a market that architecture or architectural design can withstand inclusion within?
It sure can. Look at Dwell, it's all about the prefab, marketing, and selling. A product that is made over and over, and, potentially, passing on the discounts possible by mass production. I could see a 'store' that had these 'products' for purchase. Maybe even little trinkets, like models, prints, etc. Seems pretty cool, and it'd be accessible to all. I wouldn't doubt a Dwell store in the very near future.
Anyone want to buy a franchise?
I would argue, in most cases, mass consumer products aren't really high design though.
People shop at places thike the GAP, Target and Mervins, the architectural equivelant of which isn't far from current homebuilding. So I'm not sure that that's the best model, if the current form of high architecture is what you are trying to sell.
I'm a huge car freak, so the automotive industry has alwasy intrigued me. And as much as we all seem to admire cars it's kind of funny how conventiona they are. In order to produce the number of units car manufacturers do they are essentailly forced to use particular manufacturing process.There are hughe conformations that automotive desiigners have to accept due to the manufactureing process dictated by the number of units they sell. Futher the drivetrains are all quite similr, the fact that basically all cars use internal comustion engines plays a big factor in the form they take.
The only really unconventional cars with really fun designs being produced are the aars being built in limited numbers, becasue they are able to access different methods of production; manufacturers like TVR and Ferrari, and limited production number cars Corvette and Viper. And even these don't stray that far from the more pedestrian machines.
Another big difference between buildings and most consumer products (in addition to mobility) is the scale and cost.
I guess I'm not sure what I'm trying to argue for here, but I guess I should clarify that I'm not suggesting mass produced products can't be well designed, because in many respects I think they may be (or have certain opportunities to be) better deigned. I guess I just suggesting there is a bit of a distinction between the ambitions of a well designed mass produced products and what most architects are trying to do culturally or even experientially.
While a dwell home might increase people awareness of what architects do at some level, I'm still not sure there're going to be able to access the work or say Lebbeus Woods, Eisenmen, CoopHimmelblau, or even Morphosis:
http://boards.newyorkmetro.com/zerothread?id=18
While we all know the dangers of annonamous discussion forums I still find the reactions of non-architects to these propals quite interesting (as well as entertaining).
I am huge Coop Himmelblau fan, and have been for many years, but that one is pretty odd.
Psycho - I'd argue that architecture is, in some ways, very similar to automotive design. If anything, they are pushing one offs further by making one offs that make it to production, then the technology trickles down to the mainstream (look at all aluminum cars, carbon fiber, semi automatic transmissions, etc. - all made #1 for performance, but with the idea to refine it, bring costs down, then mass produce).
Architecture SHOULD look at this. We have the same limitations as those making concept cars - existing technologies and materials. But where they go further is they try something new, knowing it can be done over time, for a reasonable fee. The construction industry has not pushed any kind of development, so us architects don't push anything (with a few exceptions, like Gehry's tech firm that could make a big difference).
The only side that is progressing is the prefab arena. They are taking existing technologies (as many homes are made prefab, they are just ugly), and refining them, testing the boundaries, etc, in the hopes that their will be more options at less costs down the line.
If architecture could at least evolve the technologies used and the manufacturing process, then we could push design farther, knowing that it will pay off down the line. Right now, everything is a one off, built, then forgotten.
If we thought like product designers or automotive designer, where great design can make more money down the line, as things progress from one offs to mass production, then perhaps good architects would make more money, and make more of a difference.
Just 2 cents more...
I wasn't trying to comment on coophimmelblau's work (there are links there to the other entrys) but I thought the non architects reaction to the work was quite interesting.
There's actually a pretty good article in (I cant remember if it was in European Car, or CAR) a few months back that was a panel discussion amongst all the automotive design heavyweights (Bangle, Freeman, Jay Mays, etc.) that was pretty interesting, among other things they were discussing all the retro designs comming out.
Stamped unibody construction (the way 99% of the cars on the market are manufactured) has HUGHE design implications. If you want to do big swoopy curves you can't really do it with stmped metal, it has to be GRP however this generally means it has to be hand laid, which means it has to be done in small numbers, hence the only cars that have these forms are Laborgini's, Ferrari's, TVR's, etc. No cars go into production without being designed with very specific knowledge of the process that will be used to manufacture it.
I guess my poit is Automotive designers (even in school) are adhereing very strictly to all sorts of conventions dictated by saftey requirements and manufatureing process, all of which have huge and limiting design implications. I don't nessecarily think that's bad, just needs to be noted. I guess that was partly why I mentioned that aticle, they started to touch on that and of course their inevitable frusteration with such things, and of course why manufacturers like TVR are so fun to work for as a designer.
Who has a custom deisgned car? Buying 22in spinners for your navigator doen't make it that personal. People are given a limited number of options (which aren't castly differnet, color of interio, color of exterior, rdio or not, 17 or 18in wheels) and they think they've got car that' all their own. It's kind of funny. And not that different than the way home builders work. Though designers are sadly out of the equation inhojme buiding...
Architects utilze mass production with every single project they do, just at a slightly differnet scale. The building it's self is not mass produced, but almsot every component (2x4's, nails, sinks, even) is a mass produced product. I just lost my train of thought...
Oh and I'll go in on that dwell franchise with you ;)
"mass customization" is the concept being discussed here. it's not mass produced, but rather modulor, in which the consumer can choose components and assemble them to their liking. A book called refabricating architecture discusses (albeit only in concept) the advantages and limitations to architectural building within the automotive industry's framework. I think there is a hell of a lot to learn here, and this "architecture as product" idea fits right into what this book talks about. (Production based architecture lures the public into a discussion of general architecture, which in turn can lead to discussions of much more sophisticated design ideas.)
Mass customized products will be the odds on choice of evolving out of a "brand loyal" consumer to "personal loyalty", i.e. individuality. This new phase of our economy will, in turn, begin to accept buildings. The dwell thing is basically mass customization. you have a module from which you add and subtract creating your own piece of design. Take that and mix it with the sheer enjoyment our culutre derives from experiencing consumption, and you will have a taylor made retail environment that will begin to communicate to the public.
someone above mentioned that this idea doesn't teach people about what Lebbeus, eisenman, and coop (for example) are up to. no, not really, but what it does do is draw them into a space where architectural ideas exist in the environment, and the user picks and chooses what they feel is worthy of a look. Call it education through consumption, or something to that effect.
I know mass customization is what we're talking about, I've just heard the term thrwon around with far too much frequency and more as a ploy then really engaging the idea. Weather it's customizable, it's still mas produced, and has to deal with those implications. Mass customization is just understanding how many units you are producing, ecenomically whcih technique you must use, and given that technique and it's production limitatins how many variations it will allow. It's not fundamentally different than mass producitons, it's really just "smart mass productino". It's just such a trendy buzzword that I try to avaoid it. I agree we could learn alot from it.
However teh "personal loyalty" that I've seen from mass customization so far has been fairly week. Hopefully that will inprove. I will say that Gregg Lynn's 40,000 teapot variations we're impressive. However I don't know how much they cost, and therefore how accessible they were. And the specificty with whcih he had contorl over the parameters seemed to ammount to formal variations, variations which had no real useful differnece, simply that they were different. I'm not sure how useful that is (assuming I understood the project coreectly...).
However this isn't vastly different than FLW's textile block ideas or Corbu's Maison Domino, or The Eames, or or or... it's like the modernist dream, but we still haven't quite made it. New manufactureing process may lead the way.
But like I said I'd argue that builders sort of are doing mass customization. Why there aren't more well designerd builder homes? I'm not sure.
There will be. It's kind of like the tail leading the dog. Developers pursue opporutinities based on risk. If the market wants ugly homes, that's what they give them. Problem is, the market wants what it sees (like man, I was so sure I could not live without a 911 Turbo when I lived in LA! One on every corner), and it sees ugly homes.
Eventually, hopefully, there will be a leap and people will 'see' better homes, not larger, and want them. Then the developers will make them.
This is nothing new, it's just that the means by which to reach people are new (Dwell, this forum, etc.). There is the techology, it's just in the wrong hands!
So, yeah, how about that franchise! It'd be pretty cool to have store with all the goodies - furniture, prints, homes...
I should note that not all devlopers see things that way. I know of at least a few that have a real vision, something pretty inspiring, and they know how to make money, which is also inspiring!
i think in the world of academia architecture students need to focus on taking cognates in other fields, related or not. i did some in civil engineering and found it rather enlightening. if people got minors in business, marketing, or even social work, in addition to related fields, it would probably help us all out in the long run. it would be nice if architecture programs began to encourage this type of behavior.
my undergrad is in finance, and hey mbr, how do we start?
i should say, when do we start?
I actually do have a minor in business :) Maybe that's why I am not taking the traditional path!
Hmmm, starting....that's the tough part, eh? I am working on that, both from a developer/architect side as well as the product side, but it's just the beginning.
If anyone has ideas, I'd love to hear them. I would certainly be interested in dicussing things. I've got a few kicking around and it would be great to get some kind of network established.
I am a bit concerned about the idea of selling architecture in a retail environment. Right now, the consensus is that architects are underpaid, under appreciated, and a bit mysterious with all of their archy-speak. I think selling architecture for the masses in the retail environment would bring attention to architecture, perhaps even make it more understandable, although I do not think the average architecture graduate would benefit much from it. Like Armani suits, I can only imagine hundreds of thousands of little Grehy houses, with different colours of titanium to suit the average Joe’s taste. There needs to be a way of informing the consumer about custom design, and the economical impacts that come along with it. Environmental design, as an example, saves money and power. I think we should market these aspects of architecture, especially during a time when people are becoming increasingly aware of power and electricity usage… recalling last year’s blackout as well as increasing smog in our cities.
Anyway is the whole retail shebang not just the average builders strategy, except sticking it in a mall, and having some architect design it.... with style.
our competition (builders) are selling their services to the general public in a reatil enviroment. We need to keep up with the Jones
Well we're sort of going round in circles here, but I guess I'll say it again; I don't think builders are our competition. And if I wanted to play devils advocate I'd argue that it's not architecture. If we we're to get involved in home building we'd simply be designers esigning the homes, working for the builders, not competing with them. At the most they've just eliminated one of the middle men. But like I said way above, it's a segment of builging that was never the territory of architects.
Don't get me worng it's a pie that I'd like a piece of.
But what do you call the prefab homes? The aren't 'builder' homes, per se, because there is not really much site work done. Would you call that factory the builder?
I think there is opportunity for architecture to expand, but it can't be thought of the same as building a million+ house in BHills. It's a different market with different rules. If architecuture is to survive, it must not only expand but embrace opportunities. I think this is where some of the fundamental problems are, not many architects want to change (at least the way they do business).
erizzy:
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.
Especially considering the reactions to the results on renovation TV shows.
it would also help if we would started speaking in ways that the general public could understand instead of using psuedo intellucual archibabble
doh! ArchiBubblians might have fun making 'Archibabble', but I can't read it.
Forget the AIA, they will die as will the need for licensure (of which, there is none). Invest in Dwell. They are addressing the everyday person, wich is the mass market, with attainable goods (sometimes, anyway). That's simple marketing.
Architecture will die if people refuse to adapt. Not all architects make nice buildings and not all builders make bad architecture.
Buy a full page Ad in Dwell magazine..it about the only connection these days. Or become the next Michael Graves or Tod Oldham...it's about the only thing palettable to the Gen Pub. And that's not very promising. You almost need to be an architect or formally trained in the arts to appreciate architecture. Money and taste are inversely proportional.
" How can we, as a profession, market ourselves to the general public???"
... Now there's a loaded question!
Though I'm tempted to say, asides from priceless contacts that are PRE-selected and all about financial backing, (and possibly some wall to wall commando style marketing for that same target group), I'd say you can't squeeze much else from a lemon tree.
(Though I am an optimist, let me get back to you on that. I'd like to solve this one!)
Doctors ......Necessity
Attorneys.... Necessity (through Coercion)
Architects??..Commodity - "Can I design for less?!"
(Firstly, gotta start changing that slogan!...)
Design = Commodity
Shelter = Necessity
Health = Necessity
Extravagance = Commodity
Aesthetic Beauty = ?
Again, it comes down to what we as a profession decide to sell ourselves on.
Doctors typically are no more necessary, but they affect the person's most intimate possession...themselves. likewise that is how attorneys do the same. you value your freedom, your money, your livelihood, those concepts which become inextricable from one's person or conception of themselves as a person. what is keeping architects from doing the same. what are we doing wrong in the way we are selling ourselves. how do we do it, but make it personal?
Shelter=Necessity
It is a shame that architecture (esp. architectural education) is now so removed from building good functional places for people to live and work and is instead focused on more and more abstract theoreticals.
Yeah, what a shame that buildings take on meaning and inspire larger theoretical discourse. I hate it when you start out with a simple idea like trying to stay dry and it gets all mucked up by smart ass people who ascribe larger more complex thoughts to what that means.
Theoretical discourse doesn't get people a cheaper, better-made or more comfortable house. It gets them an ugly facade that's out of style by the end of the week, and depresses the value of their home by the end of the month.
That's a little simplistic and naive, don't you think?
Nope. Theory is intellectual wankery.
ok, keep calling yourself baboon.
Lived in italy for a while...over there the general public IS into architecture . And unlike the rest of the world its not just starchitects and archi-fashion which gets all the attention, it covers the whole range of architecture...there's an endless amount of Italian architectural magazines and websites.
So maybe we should investigate this Italian phenomenon and try to figure out why the Italian general public is intrerested in architecture and use this knowledge spread this interest throughout the world.
Any Italians online with a theory???
You don't need theoretical baggage unless you can't produce a quality product
Are we assuming that theory=linguistic interpretation? Is that what you are so quick to dismiss? I'm just trying to understand your argument.
No. Theory, as I am using it, encompasses things like:
"locating architecture's intellectual project within the historical matrix of the bourgeois metropolis in an effort to undermine the ruling phallogocentric ego-paradigm as it relates to capitalist historicity"
...in other words, pseudo-philosophy which happens to be tangentially related to buildings. It doesn't help anyone create a better building; it achieves nothing except insofar as it helps the author get another publication on his/her resume.
So your problem is with architecture that responds to our male dominated economic system?
Sigh. You're being intentionally dense.
No, my problem is with purely academic discourse that achieves nothing & helps nobody. Writing an article about how "the architecture of the future will dissolve interpersonal boundaries and create a transnational superstate founded on the concept of circular rather than angular matrices" does nothing.
Pseudophilosophy is, as I have said, intellectual wankery. It might feel good, but it doesn't really do anyone ELSE any good. Great, someone can manipulate fancy words. Fabulous, I hope it was enjoyable.
If architectural theory spent more time thinking about construction techniques and funding basic research, THEN it might have something to contribute. Providing phrases for critics to sling around isn't much of a contribution.
what do you guys think of the new york high line project
as an exercise in marketing, public relations and political negotiation?
quality product or pre-construction pipe dreams?
diller and scofidio win rights to new dig
the forced column widths crop the pictures, and those are some fantastic pixels you're not getting.
rutger, sorry about the late reply, i just read it.
i kinda differ with your view about the relationship between italy and architecture...we dont build, and we dont care, really. very little architectural scene (aprt from milan) due to lack of commissions and avanguard.
...where did you live?
after reading most of these posts, i think the problem is obvious. granted better marketing would be a positive aspect for the profession, but i believe the problem lies with contractors. they've been able to 'steal' clients from us architects. they have marketed themselves and being able to design-build instead of purely build. you ask most laymen what an architect does. often times they say we 'build' things...not design. so they look at an architect and contractor not as two entities but one. since architects can't build, they go to contractors to get the 'two-in-one' package deal instead. contractors have created the mindset of why bother with the middleman aka architect.
our response should be taking away the contractors ability to 'design'. why should they be allowed to 'design' buildings? we need to push the fact that we, as architects, not only design for aesthetic reasons, but for more importantly environment reasons. the concept of sustainable design...orientation, lighting, quality air, ultimately qualtiy of life, etc. should be of great importance to government officials, whom have the power to tell contractors that they have no legal right in designing buildings. that's what architects are for and thats why they must earn their license. this way when people want something built, they're forced to hire an architect and for good reason.
we need to get out of the elitist mindset and stop waiting for people to come to us, but rather force them there. we are obviously not all the hype we think we are. so it's time to do something about it, set the pride aside.
To answer the original question...
I wear a suit and tie to work at least 4 days a week.
response to why italians like architecture?
they live for the slow, evolving flow of life in city or town, and architecture is a huge part of it.. plus hang out in any piazza in italy, and you'd have to be blind to not understand that they are all about style of clothes, of expression, of everything.
most americans could care less.
Mr Baboon,
The authors of these articles believe that they are doing the profession a favor by making architects appear smarter that the general public; alienating potential clients
new york high line project--
is this a photoshop project????
hammoks + hot girls + meat packing district = :)
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) [or, no sarcasm intended toward those with this goal?]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. [1] So we rail against developers/home builders since
[snip]
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 think designers (and builders) can strive to produce incredible amazing design for mass consumption. Some people argue against progressive design, by pointing out cookie cutter's sales success. They call this the 'wisdom of market demand'. But this the PC defense of laziness. Not many customers are able to predict their level of satisfaction as it will exist 20 years forward. And the marketer's don't truly concern themselves with future satisfaction/benefits of the customer.
I doubt a marketer can lead customers/users to more beneficial product than can a designer. Marketers tend to shortcut the process of finding a solution for users. Simile: adopting a diet of pure aspartame, because the taste buds like aspartame's sweetness.
[1] The wine&pate-set pukes me out. If any of them wants me as a designer, they'd better enjoy paying a lot for their masochism :-) However, I'm certainly aware that the overpaid control most of the dinero.
Skipping the lengthy pros(e) & (un)cons(sciousness), we can summarize: No one claimed that virtue was an easy goal.
----
the above could use some editing, but i've got other things to do :-)
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)
send him your name and address ,so h'ell spell it correctly on the US$300k check h'es supposed to mail to you
yet those who need, often don't obtain.
while many who don'nt need, DO obtain (cosmetic surgery...)
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.