On a fairly consistent basis, this forum highlights the ongoing tension that exists between those who see architecture primarily as "a calling, focused on self expression" and those who see the profession primarily as "a way to make a living" ... most seem to lament that it cannot be both simultaneously.
Why is this so ?
Practically speaking, what can we do -- as individuals -- to change the way it is ?
my opinion is that they do co-exist, but i think every profession has the profit/higher calling divide. what exacerbates things in architecture is that we also have an art/science divide.
after 9 years in school & internship it seems that the field is large enough to accommodate both these points of view, and that there is a large enough expanse between them for the great majority of us to navigate in a way that suits our own particular philosophies and goals.
(most calls for school to be more "real-world" based seem to come from frustrated professionals who want pre-trained cad monkeys from day one, in my own uneducated and humble opinion.)
recommended reading: The CRS Team and the Business of Architecture
CRS was a firm that began in the early 50's with a couple of Texas A&M graduates. Bill Caudill was a pioneer in the integration of the two seemingly polar aspects of architecture.
Moreover, the firm had a collection of dedicated individuals who each had their niche. Some had strengths in design, while others thrived in the business/communication aspects.
Without going down the road of form and function as a viable end product of Architecture, great architects perform the balance of commercial demands with their expression. Their success is ultimately measured in a capitalist economy by their continuation through time.
Of course success can be self fulfilling where the architectural product can be taken as art created by an artist. The commercial and PR success can be hugely inflated.
It is naïve to think that ‘the real world’ is a construct designed to frustrate the artist within you. Pure Architecture in the real world is formed by the economics of the time.
what everybody misses in this profession, at least most do, is that good design sells. This is the fundamental driving force in other professions, such as industrial design, automotive design, etc. The combinations of good design and adequate marketing make for a successful product.
In architecture, there are few that even think about how design impacts profitability and therefore never approach it from that view point. That, and unlike every other profession, and the fact that bad designers make as much as good designers, will continue to drive architecture into the ground.
If one isn't paying for good architecture, why not just build a stock floor plan or some generic box? There are too many architects that think they are good and not enough agreement on what is 'good' architecture.
Thankfully, some developers are seeking out good designers and are profiting from it. It's rare, but will continue to grow and, I pray, there will start to be some differences in compensation based on talent and abilities.
too many think they are good
not enough are good
at least good enough to pay extra for
the wexner center has to be extensively remodeled after 15 years? karl friedrich schinkel's altes museum looked better and it was like 175 years old or something when i saw it. (i may have the date wrong but the sentiment is correct)
a metal building IS good by some standards, so is a boring suburban junior high school
For instance, I walk into a boutique or gallery where there are very well designed 'objects', they are 'pretty' and I like them very much. But I decide they are not worth the price. I don't want to pay that much for someone else's 'design intuition' or style, because it doesn't really match mine. so I shop at TJMaxx and garage sales. Maybe that's a poor example...
Sorry for all the 'quotes'.
I do question whether architects are obsolete. What I do think would help is a precise pairing of clients with architects. Clients need the right architect for them, not the cheapest. I think the AIA should get right on that. :)
regarding the poster's first post, I think it's precisely because of architects and schools who see architecture as a form of self expression, an art that can't be compromised, that the second type of architecture (done for a living) is so bad. to the extent that these purists build anything, they're willfully ignorant of the fact that art is also a commodity and their retreatist tactics (professors who talk a good game but don't build shit) do nothing to make the cities they hate so much any better.
architecture isn't (just) self expression. architects' preoccupations are just one part of a 6-9 part equation. schools don't teach real process, or at least what process is taught is largely worthless when it comes to improving the status quo of real buildings in the real world.
in school we're taught ONLY the self expression part of architecture. if the build environment we live in really is bad in some ways, architecture schools have primary responsiblity for failing to equip students with a useful design process.
in school, we mostly look at expressive museums and houses for rich people. our contemporary heroes design the same sorts of buildings for the same clients. is it really any wonder that buildings for normal people are as bad as they are ? does building-sized art really improve the environments of real people ?
cities won't be saved by art. they'll be saved by better normal buildings made by real firms who have to make enough money to keep the lights on and treat their employees humanely. not these blowhard archi-poodle divas making more fucking art museums at the request of the rich....
Yes they can coexist but someone has to be the CAD monkey. I have been the CAD monkey, and while quietly sitting there eating my bannanas I waited and plotted my way towards opposable thumbs and watching erect one's every win and defeat, I knew I had to learn what these hairless creatures of meetings and blackberries knew, this secret knoweldge, for only then could I raise my club and losen my grip on primordial sticks.
when I said good I meant design wise. I agree that museums won't change the world, but they will make an impact. More glass and steel towers, with nasty stone tacked on, regardless of how effecient their water sealing or air circulation is, will always be ugly and suppressive.
I care about good design. All architecture should function well, but simply providing the basic necessities (like eating a boring meal or eating at a 5 star restaurant - too many architects think they are 3-5 five stars, but most are 1 or less) will not stimulate society or future generations.
'cities won't be saved by art?' maybe not, but what will save them? Certainly not monotony.
"cities won't be saved by art. they'll be saved by better normal buildings made by real firms who have to make enough money to keep the lights on and treat their employees humanely. not these blowhard archi-poodle divas making more fucking art museums at the request of the rich..."
that sums it up nicely for me. sure, every city wants its sexy museums from big name architects, but what do they do to improve the everyday lives of the masses that live there? not a whole lot, as individuals are more affected by the design of everyday buildings and spaces by everyday workaday architects.
"a calling, focused on self expression" lands the job
"a way to make a living" has them sign on the dotted line and will follow up to collect said sum when the job is done.
You need both personalities to stay alive out there.
i think the issue is being confused. It is not a matter of art versus economic constraints so much as socialism versus consumer-/capitalism.
we are all trained to be socialists in school, it is inherent in the bauhaus/modernist tradition that permuates nearly all of the schools in NA and europe. we think we should make places for the world, with great public effects and wonderful social relevance, and the client wants to make money, period. no two views of the world could be more at odds, and so we struggle, call ourselves sell-outs, berate principals for doing such obviously commercial and profoundly terrible architecture all for the sake of the money. money which they (well, WE, to be honest) desire because it allows us/them to live one sort of beautiful designer lifestyle or other.
balancing art and business is not so hard if you cultivate clients who are interested. but finding clients who think public space is worth more than the FAR bonus is incredibly difficult because the pay off is hard to see. no icon status, no financial reward, nothing...at best you might convince a client that environment affects performance of his staff, but most don't really believe that and in the end it is money that rules the boardroom not theoretical productivity.
Which is why places like rockefeller centre are so amazing. it actually partakes of the street life, adds to it, and improves the place it is attached to. Not many places like that built anymore. And it sucks because those are EXACTLY the kinds of places we are TRAINED to design.
I personally have given up on waiting on the perfect client, since I know exactly what I would love to design and build I have started to speculate real estate in the hopes of developing the area myself. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination but have spearheaded a colloborative LLC to take in like minded shareholders, and stearing them on to revitalize an area in the currently very run down third ward of houston. My idea is spurred by the current suburbinization of most american cities which has led to long commutes to bland gated communities. With the ever rising price of gas and a new generation of profesionals who were raised in these bland suburbs I believe the revitilization of current inner city "ghettos" is inevitable, and put that on top of the relative and the current inexpensiveness of land in houston (no zoning) and I can design anything I want for the most part. The other main inpetus of the LLC is to be able to pass deed restrictions on the site to prevent the likes of perry homes inc. to be able to build these monsterouse faux mediteranean villas" town houses on lots that restrict lot drainage. Right now i'm leaning towards a inn residence artists community and a semi-independent retirement community. But the concept of a company that speculates/designs/and builds is very appealing in that it is all in house and controlled with the same vision and mixes the buisness and the art of creative design, it becomes and "engine" of sorts in that the sucess and innovation of one venture will fuel the next. Forget that notion of the starving artist, who suffers for the sake of his/her art, I have always beleived that good art is also good buisness.
for me, this is one of the great unresolved dilemmas of professional life ... so many of the architects I know are both highly talented and greatly frustrated ... looking back on many years of practice, several lessons seem to emerge:
a) architects who are truly successful in getting a lot of their best work built seem to have a tremendous capacity to discuss their designs with their clients in language that helps the client understand why the solution being proposed solves the client's problem ... the solution is defined from the client's point-of-view (not from the architect's point-of-view)
b) architects who are truly successful in running a vibrant, profitable practice take the time to learn basic business principals ... or hire somebody who knows that stuff
the rules of success are not a lot different for architects than they are for any other profession or business ... you have to serve your client and you have to make intelligent decisions that will help you get to where you want to go
salesmanship and business management are rarely -- if ever -- taught in our colleges of architecture ... such topics are of zero interest to the typical academic ... but, scratch any architect who is 5-8 years out of college and you will find a great bewilderment about this lack of essential tools and skills that we need for success in our chosen profession
so many architects seems to feel that this is an "either / or" dilemma ... there's really no reason it cannot be a "both / and" situation ... the architects I know are among some of the smartest (and dumbest) people I've ever met ... most have a great capacity to learn new skills ... few ever really try
the question I think we all have to ask ourselves at some point is "what are you willing to do in order to be successful ?" ... if we're not willing to change who we are and learn some new skills, we will continue to live in this "either / or" world ... that's not my choice
"the rules of success are not a lot different for architects than they are for any other profession or business ... you have to serve your client and you have to make intelligent decisions that will help you get to where you want to go"
CalebRichers,
I really don't like quoting, but :
"But the concept of a company that speculates/designs/and builds is very appealing in that it is all in house and controlled with the same vision and mixes the buisness and the art of creative design, it becomes and "engine" of sorts in that the sucess and innovation of one venture will fuel the next. "
While the core of your practice sounds very progressive and intelligent, this sounds like total John Portman, who was an all-in-one-artist-architect-developper.
well...portman was smart and ambitious and very successful. it's just that the buildings were just not very good. good luck, cr, and may your buildings be better!
everyone loves to rip the "evil" developer, but instead of complaining jump in and do it how you see fit, save the green space, facilitate comunity, allow for the preservation of trees etc.
NPC, i appreciate your tidings but could you try to avoid bland and generic terms such as "bad or good" when critisising, lets try to be more specific and constructive.
Right now my design concept for the area is what i term "texas-eco-vernacular" lots of metal, siding/roof and exposed wood trusses and porches, i'm currently going to place alot of the budget in roofing, allowing for vented airspace between trusses and roof metal, and using spray-in closed cell rigid foam for insulation, the initial costs are more but the long term will be saving a ton on utility especially for houston's climate...i will post some pictures soon so everyone can rip it.
as this picks up I also like the rural studio concept of using salvaged material. which is only really applicable in a design/build format.
"it's just that the buildings were" closed recycled-air reflective-glass silos which eschewed the outside world while coddling the inhabitants in rooms with obscenely expensive and garish finishes or along the edges of the atria where they could ogle each others' obscenely expensive clothes and jewelry.
hey calebrichers - i'm curious about your ideas for the 3rd ward - i lived in houston for awhile. what about the 5th ward? i think (at least last when I was there) that was an area well located for development.
I think one thing that would be great for houston would be dense developments, designed for the climate and generating some of their own electricity. look at all that sun!
go for it, but keep an eye on the design and finances.
"portman was [is] smart and ambitious and very successful. it's just that the buildings were [are] just not very good" ... not per corell
i lived in Atlanta for a long time ... esp. during the years when JPA was making a huge impact on downtown ... to say that his "buildings are just not very good" completely misses the point of how John shaped that city ... compared to the other developer-built buildings erected during that period, JPA's work is wonderful ... i worked in one of his buildings at peachtree center for 4-years while an intern architect at TVS&A ... compared to other buildings where my firm might have been housed, it was a great place to be.
you can take a "the glass is half-empty" attitude or a "the glass is half-full" attitude ... John Portman took the bull by the horns and, among developers of commercial real estate, his results are way, way above average ... give the guy some credit as an architect ... and, he's rich ... and he's had fun ... and, for the most part, he did it his way.
now, admit it, aren't you just a little bit envious ... ?
i'll admit to not being envious, mostly because i find his buildings to be seriously trite shite; i would be ashamed of myself if i built that kind of stuff.
right now i am working with a friend who is a developer/architect with rather fine design sensibilities so i know it is possible to be a succesful businessman and a good architect, but portman ain't it. He can surely be admired for his skills as a developer but it is difficult to say anything good about his architecture other than to stand in awe of the sheer scale and arrogance of his approach and the context he works in. the clearest critique i read of him is in SMLXL where m. portman declined to meet with rem, and his staff talk about him like thay are in a cult.
gotta be better examples of successful architects that are also good businesmen....no?
gruen, 5th ward is currently being developed at an alarmingly fast rate now, becasue of this quick influx, the land prices have skyrocketed as people are holding out, to say the least, it is too rich for my blood. plus the original fabrick of the neighborhood is being lost to track builders who place these 4 story town homes 3 ft apart and right on the building line. This not only destroyes any street life, but everytime it rains hard allows nowhere for any runoff. I have many friends in the area and am observing closely the f-ups. 3rd ward is good now (was best 2 yrs. ago) b/c it is still very run down and thus land prices are affordable (for now). They sell crack 50 yards from my front door. But the city know that this will change in about 5-7 yrs. and are making infurstractural inprovements to emanipation park etc. there is also a proposed metro line that i have an inside track, will go down elgin linking U of H to the downtown and medical center. Then there are already initiatives such as project row house, run by a collaborative of RICE arch. profs and local artists already well underway. I have never seen this many vacant lots together this close to downtown.
As the only "cracker" on the block, at the very least I have met some very nice people (the neighborhood is teaming with life all the time) and is much more friendly then any gated community. Next time your in town i'd love to show u around.
Right now i'm collaborating with a sculpter for a gallery and artist residence, set up under a non-profit. looking at ultra cheap student housing, that will utilize comercial offsite building tech. and a semi-independant retirment housing/community that will clump independant residences along with collective areas such as 24 on staff help, that take advantage of houston's proximity to world class hospitols, and our aging boomers. a transitional program between independant living and dependant.
jump ... by today's standards, i share much of what you say about JPA's work ... by the standards of the mid-60s, 70s and 80s, when the bulk of his US work was constructed, the firm's results were vastly superior to the majority of developer-led construction on a COMPARATIVE basis only ... consider this in context, not in isolation
but everything that is truly successful has to begin with some sort of vision. it doesn't have to be detailed, but it's necessary to have a reason and a passion to get to the point that you want.
if one single little cog in your wheel decides that they don't like your vision, and it jumps off of the wheel.. you will be immediately unbalance and the entire experience won't be what you intended.
developers are not always evil money mongers, architects are not always artsy blowhards.... they just need to be on the same page at all times. you're working together.
there's a reason why starving artists don't give in. and a reason why money hungry people tend to lose their appreciation.
Sir Edmund Hillary once said that "mountain climbers always help each other" ... i've always felt the best relationships between architect and developer are those that involve a shared vision about what might be possible ... and a huge mutual respect for what the other party brings to the table ... relationships of this type are damn hard to find or establish ... but, so is the creation of a good building ... it doesn't just happen by chance or by the efforts of one party
I do know this. You can build artless architecture, but you can't build with art. To build anything, you need two things money and time. Art is not necessary to build anything.
the point isn't about art at all, it is is about human experience. if you want to call it art, then the art of everyday life. developers don't care about people or life in general.. what they care about is cash, pure and simple. the goal is self-aggrandisation at best, pure profit at worse. These motives can work but tend not to with the enormous scales that are possible today. Long as we know that going in, i see no problem...
unbalanced wheels and visions are far better than unity. unity is the same as being dead...
oh yeah, and gods save us from the visionaries. except for cameron sinclair, cause his vision is quite amazing.
something is properly called beautiful and good, or ugly and bad, to the extent to which it performs, or fails to perform, the function for which it is designed.
so, sounds like if it was designed for profit as a primary function and was in fact economically profitable, it would be considered "good," according to this logic? Or only good in the eyes of he who profited by it?
jump
"developers don't care about people or life in general.. what they care about is cash, pure and simple. the goal is self-aggrandisation at best, pure profit at worse."
did a "evil developer" kill your dog recently?
"unity is the same as being dead..."
care to explain that quote, I really not sure what that means but please feel free to explain, right now i'm a little lost.
"gods save us from the visionaries", well i'm sorry if some of us like to dream, and get things done, I hope one day you get one too.
caleb - i did some work with the Rice Building Workshop / Project Row Houses. So I know the 3rd ward a bit.
5th ward was EMPTY when I was there. My buddy and I almost bankrolled, built and owned Michael Bell's glass house for the 5th ward / 16 houses dealie, but couldn't see that the neighborhood could support it at that time. With a bit more vision, we could have seen that we should have done more than that =)
But everyone in Houston had realized that if they could fit 4 houses on 2 lots, they could make a lot of money. Kinda yukky. I mean, it works in other cities (Boston, Chicago, etc) but not in Houston.
Well, I now live in a small town in Michigan, and we got drug dealers doing deals right next to our house. Dang. So it's not just an urban problem. Actually, I've discovered the drug dealers are not really the problem. Mixed neighborhoods (class, race, $, etc) are much better than the sub-urhb. enjoy!
ap, I think from most archiects stand points we look at building composition as our frame of refereance for "good design"...what ever that style may be , a O.M.A. creation, to a FOSTER building, both varying styles. But a owner or developer will see that secondary to the bottom line, yes profit....but i don't think these guys are doing anything but being economical, that means comprimising a few architectual flares for a building that can be built under budget and safely. It is up to the architect to design with these constraints in mind, to possibly with enough foresight avoid as many comprimises as possible, and bring to fruition as much of the original concept as possible. Yes some developers are very ignorant of what makes a good building, and i think that most architects are ignorant of what it takes to get a building built (financially). it should not be a "us vs. them" mentallity. the lilly white and pure architect/god. Vs. the dirty, and greedy developer. we need to learn from each other, and in the process create more and more great buildings, from better designed super markets, to more inspiring museums.
gruen, cool...i say the plans for that house, very nice. what type of work are you doing in Michigan?
you are so right about mixed neighborhoods, ya the drug dealers will leave you alone but its those crazy ass junkies that follow them that can be the problem.
if you are in h-town sometime let me know i'd like to hear more about your experiences with project row house
you're painting with a pretty broad brush with some of these criticisms of the development community ... what you say does not square necessarily with my own fairly-extensive experience working with developers
as in our profession, there are good developers and there are bad developers, just like there are good architects and bad architects ... and, in both groups, most are probably somewhere in between those extremes ...
i do agree that there are too many developers out there who give higher priority to efficiency and cost-effective design than they do to aesthetics ... they will do this only as long as the consumers for their properties don't seem to care and don't demand a higher standard ...
if you want to change the situation, change the way the average building user thinks about their environment ... raise THOSE expectations and you will raise the quality of work produced by developers across the board ...
I don't think esthetics are an issue for many architects, although as far as the user is concerned, they usually carry plenty of weight.
some developers do care if a housing development, for instance, will have a negative impact on local ecology / storm-water drainage / livability...but they seem to be very few and far between.
Most, like the one that I currently work for, are interested only in the bottom line. All other decisions fall victim to the profitability of the product.
I agree that educating the user is of foremost concern, as is coming up with alternatives that please both the money hungry developer and take into account the multiplicity of other issues concerned (especially with huge residential developments). This is where architecture the public service needs to step-up its game, and hold itself accountable.
To be honest, I feel like a sell-out at the moment, but I fight it every day, and try to communicate alternatives. (unfortunately, my lack of experience leaves me frustrated and my employer not very convinced).
ap ... come on man ... don't feel like a sell out ... you have more influence over architecture where you are now than you'll ever have in a design firm ... you can tell your architect when to stop designing and when to try another scheme ...
that's part of the problem...there's no "architect" besides me, just the boss and a service that stamps what my boss (builder/developer) pays him to. Don't get me wrong, it's great experience, just frustrating to communicate to this crowd when I'm fresh outta design school. I'm trying though, and I intend on doin' my best to "figure out how to make it work." My main aspiration is to make some difference, as miniscule as it may end up being...thanks for the encouragement.
AP ... learn all that you can ... develop new skills ... establish new relationships ... then take them somewhere else where you can make a positive impact ...
long as you're getting paid and learning something, you're doing ok
I am developing a business model for collaborative building development. When I have some more info I'll let you know, but I am fairly confident that it will work to produce better buildings - at least as far as it can be applied/accepted.
And AP, I am in a similar boat to you. Quizzical's advice applies. Absorb everything you can, and in a few years time you will have the knowledge and contacts to do your own thing.
The Art of Architecture / The Business of Architecture: Can they co-exist ?
On a fairly consistent basis, this forum highlights the ongoing tension that exists between those who see architecture primarily as "a calling, focused on self expression" and those who see the profession primarily as "a way to make a living" ... most seem to lament that it cannot be both simultaneously.
Why is this so ?
Practically speaking, what can we do -- as individuals -- to change the way it is ?
my opinion is that they do co-exist, but i think every profession has the profit/higher calling divide. what exacerbates things in architecture is that we also have an art/science divide.
after 9 years in school & internship it seems that the field is large enough to accommodate both these points of view, and that there is a large enough expanse between them for the great majority of us to navigate in a way that suits our own particular philosophies and goals.
(most calls for school to be more "real-world" based seem to come from frustrated professionals who want pre-trained cad monkeys from day one, in my own uneducated and humble opinion.)
recommended reading: The CRS Team and the Business of Architecture
CRS was a firm that began in the early 50's with a couple of Texas A&M graduates. Bill Caudill was a pioneer in the integration of the two seemingly polar aspects of architecture.
Moreover, the firm had a collection of dedicated individuals who each had their niche. Some had strengths in design, while others thrived in the business/communication aspects.
Without going down the road of form and function as a viable end product of Architecture, great architects perform the balance of commercial demands with their expression. Their success is ultimately measured in a capitalist economy by their continuation through time.
Of course success can be self fulfilling where the architectural product can be taken as art created by an artist. The commercial and PR success can be hugely inflated.
It is naïve to think that ‘the real world’ is a construct designed to frustrate the artist within you. Pure Architecture in the real world is formed by the economics of the time.
re6el9uy10 - horses for courses - french proverb
what everybody misses in this profession, at least most do, is that good design sells. This is the fundamental driving force in other professions, such as industrial design, automotive design, etc. The combinations of good design and adequate marketing make for a successful product.
In architecture, there are few that even think about how design impacts profitability and therefore never approach it from that view point. That, and unlike every other profession, and the fact that bad designers make as much as good designers, will continue to drive architecture into the ground.
If one isn't paying for good architecture, why not just build a stock floor plan or some generic box? There are too many architects that think they are good and not enough agreement on what is 'good' architecture.
Thankfully, some developers are seeking out good designers and are profiting from it. It's rare, but will continue to grow and, I pray, there will start to be some differences in compensation based on talent and abilities.
too many think they are good
not enough are good
at least good enough to pay extra for
the wexner center has to be extensively remodeled after 15 years? karl friedrich schinkel's altes museum looked better and it was like 175 years old or something when i saw it. (i may have the date wrong but the sentiment is correct)
what is 'good' is very subjective
a metal building IS good by some standards, so is a boring suburban junior high school
For instance, I walk into a boutique or gallery where there are very well designed 'objects', they are 'pretty' and I like them very much. But I decide they are not worth the price. I don't want to pay that much for someone else's 'design intuition' or style, because it doesn't really match mine. so I shop at TJMaxx and garage sales. Maybe that's a poor example...
Sorry for all the 'quotes'.
I do question whether architects are obsolete. What I do think would help is a precise pairing of clients with architects. Clients need the right architect for them, not the cheapest. I think the AIA should get right on that. :)
regarding the poster's first post, I think it's precisely because of architects and schools who see architecture as a form of self expression, an art that can't be compromised, that the second type of architecture (done for a living) is so bad. to the extent that these purists build anything, they're willfully ignorant of the fact that art is also a commodity and their retreatist tactics (professors who talk a good game but don't build shit) do nothing to make the cities they hate so much any better.
architecture isn't (just) self expression. architects' preoccupations are just one part of a 6-9 part equation. schools don't teach real process, or at least what process is taught is largely worthless when it comes to improving the status quo of real buildings in the real world.
in school we're taught ONLY the self expression part of architecture. if the build environment we live in really is bad in some ways, architecture schools have primary responsiblity for failing to equip students with a useful design process.
in school, we mostly look at expressive museums and houses for rich people. our contemporary heroes design the same sorts of buildings for the same clients. is it really any wonder that buildings for normal people are as bad as they are ? does building-sized art really improve the environments of real people ?
cities won't be saved by art. they'll be saved by better normal buildings made by real firms who have to make enough money to keep the lights on and treat their employees humanely. not these blowhard archi-poodle divas making more fucking art museums at the request of the rich....
Yes they can coexist but someone has to be the CAD monkey. I have been the CAD monkey, and while quietly sitting there eating my bannanas I waited and plotted my way towards opposable thumbs and watching erect one's every win and defeat, I knew I had to learn what these hairless creatures of meetings and blackberries knew, this secret knoweldge, for only then could I raise my club and losen my grip on primordial sticks.
re6el9uy10-
just for clarification purposes, bill caudill was an
oklahoma state university and MIT graduate.
when I said good I meant design wise. I agree that museums won't change the world, but they will make an impact. More glass and steel towers, with nasty stone tacked on, regardless of how effecient their water sealing or air circulation is, will always be ugly and suppressive.
I care about good design. All architecture should function well, but simply providing the basic necessities (like eating a boring meal or eating at a 5 star restaurant - too many architects think they are 3-5 five stars, but most are 1 or less) will not stimulate society or future generations.
'cities won't be saved by art?' maybe not, but what will save them? Certainly not monotony.
you might find this link both interesting and stimulating to this thread: http://doityourself.com/nonresarc/howardroark.htm
what is the role of (is there a role for) arrogance in defining / creating success as an architect ?
where does confidence end and arrogance begin ?
what is good? design wise? that is...
thenewold is onto something i think...
"cities won't be saved by art. they'll be saved by better normal buildings made by real firms who have to make enough money to keep the lights on and treat their employees humanely. not these blowhard archi-poodle divas making more fucking art museums at the request of the rich..."
that sums it up nicely for me. sure, every city wants its sexy museums from big name architects, but what do they do to improve the everyday lives of the masses that live there? not a whole lot, as individuals are more affected by the design of everyday buildings and spaces by everyday workaday architects.
oh and to answer vado (sort of)...
beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
"a calling, focused on self expression" lands the job
"a way to make a living" has them sign on the dotted line and will follow up to collect said sum when the job is done.
You need both personalities to stay alive out there.
i think the issue is being confused. It is not a matter of art versus economic constraints so much as socialism versus consumer-/capitalism.
we are all trained to be socialists in school, it is inherent in the bauhaus/modernist tradition that permuates nearly all of the schools in NA and europe. we think we should make places for the world, with great public effects and wonderful social relevance, and the client wants to make money, period. no two views of the world could be more at odds, and so we struggle, call ourselves sell-outs, berate principals for doing such obviously commercial and profoundly terrible architecture all for the sake of the money. money which they (well, WE, to be honest) desire because it allows us/them to live one sort of beautiful designer lifestyle or other.
balancing art and business is not so hard if you cultivate clients who are interested. but finding clients who think public space is worth more than the FAR bonus is incredibly difficult because the pay off is hard to see. no icon status, no financial reward, nothing...at best you might convince a client that environment affects performance of his staff, but most don't really believe that and in the end it is money that rules the boardroom not theoretical productivity.
Which is why places like rockefeller centre are so amazing. it actually partakes of the street life, adds to it, and improves the place it is attached to. Not many places like that built anymore. And it sucks because those are EXACTLY the kinds of places we are TRAINED to design.
...or, maybe not.
I personally have given up on waiting on the perfect client, since I know exactly what I would love to design and build I have started to speculate real estate in the hopes of developing the area myself. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination but have spearheaded a colloborative LLC to take in like minded shareholders, and stearing them on to revitalize an area in the currently very run down third ward of houston. My idea is spurred by the current suburbinization of most american cities which has led to long commutes to bland gated communities. With the ever rising price of gas and a new generation of profesionals who were raised in these bland suburbs I believe the revitilization of current inner city "ghettos" is inevitable, and put that on top of the relative and the current inexpensiveness of land in houston (no zoning) and I can design anything I want for the most part. The other main inpetus of the LLC is to be able to pass deed restrictions on the site to prevent the likes of perry homes inc. to be able to build these monsterouse faux mediteranean villas" town houses on lots that restrict lot drainage. Right now i'm leaning towards a inn residence artists community and a semi-independent retirement community. But the concept of a company that speculates/designs/and builds is very appealing in that it is all in house and controlled with the same vision and mixes the buisness and the art of creative design, it becomes and "engine" of sorts in that the sucess and innovation of one venture will fuel the next. Forget that notion of the starving artist, who suffers for the sake of his/her art, I have always beleived that good art is also good buisness.
for me, this is one of the great unresolved dilemmas of professional life ... so many of the architects I know are both highly talented and greatly frustrated ... looking back on many years of practice, several lessons seem to emerge:
a) architects who are truly successful in getting a lot of their best work built seem to have a tremendous capacity to discuss their designs with their clients in language that helps the client understand why the solution being proposed solves the client's problem ... the solution is defined from the client's point-of-view (not from the architect's point-of-view)
b) architects who are truly successful in running a vibrant, profitable practice take the time to learn basic business principals ... or hire somebody who knows that stuff
the rules of success are not a lot different for architects than they are for any other profession or business ... you have to serve your client and you have to make intelligent decisions that will help you get to where you want to go
salesmanship and business management are rarely -- if ever -- taught in our colleges of architecture ... such topics are of zero interest to the typical academic ... but, scratch any architect who is 5-8 years out of college and you will find a great bewilderment about this lack of essential tools and skills that we need for success in our chosen profession
so many architects seems to feel that this is an "either / or" dilemma ... there's really no reason it cannot be a "both / and" situation ... the architects I know are among some of the smartest (and dumbest) people I've ever met ... most have a great capacity to learn new skills ... few ever really try
the question I think we all have to ask ourselves at some point is "what are you willing to do in order to be successful ?" ... if we're not willing to change who we are and learn some new skills, we will continue to live in this "either / or" world ... that's not my choice
"the rules of success are not a lot different for architects than they are for any other profession or business ... you have to serve your client and you have to make intelligent decisions that will help you get to where you want to go"
exactly.
CalebRichers,
I really don't like quoting, but :
"But the concept of a company that speculates/designs/and builds is very appealing in that it is all in house and controlled with the same vision and mixes the buisness and the art of creative design, it becomes and "engine" of sorts in that the sucess and innovation of one venture will fuel the next. "
While the core of your practice sounds very progressive and intelligent, this sounds like total John Portman, who was an all-in-one-artist-architect-developper.
well...portman was smart and ambitious and very successful. it's just that the buildings were just not very good. good luck, cr, and may your buildings be better!
hmmm...i'm googling portman now.
everyone loves to rip the "evil" developer, but instead of complaining jump in and do it how you see fit, save the green space, facilitate comunity, allow for the preservation of trees etc.
NPC, i appreciate your tidings but could you try to avoid bland and generic terms such as "bad or good" when critisising, lets try to be more specific and constructive.
Right now my design concept for the area is what i term "texas-eco-vernacular" lots of metal, siding/roof and exposed wood trusses and porches, i'm currently going to place alot of the budget in roofing, allowing for vented airspace between trusses and roof metal, and using spray-in closed cell rigid foam for insulation, the initial costs are more but the long term will be saving a ton on utility especially for houston's climate...i will post some pictures soon so everyone can rip it.
as this picks up I also like the rural studio concept of using salvaged material. which is only really applicable in a design/build format.
okay. sorry.
"it's just that the buildings were" closed recycled-air reflective-glass silos which eschewed the outside world while coddling the inhabitants in rooms with obscenely expensive and garish finishes or along the edges of the atria where they could ogle each others' obscenely expensive clothes and jewelry.
hey calebrichers - i'm curious about your ideas for the 3rd ward - i lived in houston for awhile. what about the 5th ward? i think (at least last when I was there) that was an area well located for development.
I think one thing that would be great for houston would be dense developments, designed for the climate and generating some of their own electricity. look at all that sun!
go for it, but keep an eye on the design and finances.
"portman was [is] smart and ambitious and very successful. it's just that the buildings were [are] just not very good" ... not per corell
i lived in Atlanta for a long time ... esp. during the years when JPA was making a huge impact on downtown ... to say that his "buildings are just not very good" completely misses the point of how John shaped that city ... compared to the other developer-built buildings erected during that period, JPA's work is wonderful ... i worked in one of his buildings at peachtree center for 4-years while an intern architect at TVS&A ... compared to other buildings where my firm might have been housed, it was a great place to be.
you can take a "the glass is half-empty" attitude or a "the glass is half-full" attitude ... John Portman took the bull by the horns and, among developers of commercial real estate, his results are way, way above average ... give the guy some credit as an architect ... and, he's rich ... and he's had fun ... and, for the most part, he did it his way.
now, admit it, aren't you just a little bit envious ... ?
i'll admit to not being envious, mostly because i find his buildings to be seriously trite shite; i would be ashamed of myself if i built that kind of stuff.
right now i am working with a friend who is a developer/architect with rather fine design sensibilities so i know it is possible to be a succesful businessman and a good architect, but portman ain't it. He can surely be admired for his skills as a developer but it is difficult to say anything good about his architecture other than to stand in awe of the sheer scale and arrogance of his approach and the context he works in. the clearest critique i read of him is in SMLXL where m. portman declined to meet with rem, and his staff talk about him like thay are in a cult.
gotta be better examples of successful architects that are also good businesmen....no?
gruen, 5th ward is currently being developed at an alarmingly fast rate now, becasue of this quick influx, the land prices have skyrocketed as people are holding out, to say the least, it is too rich for my blood. plus the original fabrick of the neighborhood is being lost to track builders who place these 4 story town homes 3 ft apart and right on the building line. This not only destroyes any street life, but everytime it rains hard allows nowhere for any runoff. I have many friends in the area and am observing closely the f-ups. 3rd ward is good now (was best 2 yrs. ago) b/c it is still very run down and thus land prices are affordable (for now). They sell crack 50 yards from my front door. But the city know that this will change in about 5-7 yrs. and are making infurstractural inprovements to emanipation park etc. there is also a proposed metro line that i have an inside track, will go down elgin linking U of H to the downtown and medical center. Then there are already initiatives such as project row house, run by a collaborative of RICE arch. profs and local artists already well underway. I have never seen this many vacant lots together this close to downtown.
As the only "cracker" on the block, at the very least I have met some very nice people (the neighborhood is teaming with life all the time) and is much more friendly then any gated community. Next time your in town i'd love to show u around.
Right now i'm collaborating with a sculpter for a gallery and artist residence, set up under a non-profit. looking at ultra cheap student housing, that will utilize comercial offsite building tech. and a semi-independant retirment housing/community that will clump independant residences along with collective areas such as 24 on staff help, that take advantage of houston's proximity to world class hospitols, and our aging boomers. a transitional program between independant living and dependant.
jump ... by today's standards, i share much of what you say about JPA's work ... by the standards of the mid-60s, 70s and 80s, when the bulk of his US work was constructed, the firm's results were vastly superior to the majority of developer-led construction on a COMPARATIVE basis only ... consider this in context, not in isolation
this has already been touched on...
but everything that is truly successful has to begin with some sort of vision. it doesn't have to be detailed, but it's necessary to have a reason and a passion to get to the point that you want.
if one single little cog in your wheel decides that they don't like your vision, and it jumps off of the wheel.. you will be immediately unbalance and the entire experience won't be what you intended.
developers are not always evil money mongers, architects are not always artsy blowhards.... they just need to be on the same page at all times. you're working together.
there's a reason why starving artists don't give in. and a reason why money hungry people tend to lose their appreciation.
Sir Edmund Hillary once said that "mountain climbers always help each other" ... i've always felt the best relationships between architect and developer are those that involve a shared vision about what might be possible ... and a huge mutual respect for what the other party brings to the table ... relationships of this type are damn hard to find or establish ... but, so is the creation of a good building ... it doesn't just happen by chance or by the efforts of one party
I do know this. You can build artless architecture, but you can't build with art. To build anything, you need two things money and time. Art is not necessary to build anything.
the point isn't about art at all, it is is about human experience. if you want to call it art, then the art of everyday life. developers don't care about people or life in general.. what they care about is cash, pure and simple. the goal is self-aggrandisation at best, pure profit at worse. These motives can work but tend not to with the enormous scales that are possible today. Long as we know that going in, i see no problem...
unbalanced wheels and visions are far better than unity. unity is the same as being dead...
oh yeah, and gods save us from the visionaries. except for cameron sinclair, cause his vision is quite amazing.
"the goal is self-aggrandisation at best, pure profit at worse"
hmmmm ... seems to me I've heard these same charges leveled at our own dear profession ...
something is properly called beautiful and good, or ugly and bad, to the extent to which it performs, or fails to perform, the function for which it is designed.
so, sounds like if it was designed for profit as a primary function and was in fact economically profitable, it would be considered "good," according to this logic? Or only good in the eyes of he who profited by it?
the beautiful is that which is both profitable and pleasurable.
jump
"developers don't care about people or life in general.. what they care about is cash, pure and simple. the goal is self-aggrandisation at best, pure profit at worse."
did a "evil developer" kill your dog recently?
"unity is the same as being dead..."
care to explain that quote, I really not sure what that means but please feel free to explain, right now i'm a little lost.
"gods save us from the visionaries", well i'm sorry if some of us like to dream, and get things done, I hope one day you get one too.
caleb - i did some work with the Rice Building Workshop / Project Row Houses. So I know the 3rd ward a bit.
5th ward was EMPTY when I was there. My buddy and I almost bankrolled, built and owned Michael Bell's glass house for the 5th ward / 16 houses dealie, but couldn't see that the neighborhood could support it at that time. With a bit more vision, we could have seen that we should have done more than that =)
But everyone in Houston had realized that if they could fit 4 houses on 2 lots, they could make a lot of money. Kinda yukky. I mean, it works in other cities (Boston, Chicago, etc) but not in Houston.
Well, I now live in a small town in Michigan, and we got drug dealers doing deals right next to our house. Dang. So it's not just an urban problem. Actually, I've discovered the drug dealers are not really the problem. Mixed neighborhoods (class, race, $, etc) are much better than the sub-urhb. enjoy!
ap, I think from most archiects stand points we look at building composition as our frame of refereance for "good design"...what ever that style may be , a O.M.A. creation, to a FOSTER building, both varying styles. But a owner or developer will see that secondary to the bottom line, yes profit....but i don't think these guys are doing anything but being economical, that means comprimising a few architectual flares for a building that can be built under budget and safely. It is up to the architect to design with these constraints in mind, to possibly with enough foresight avoid as many comprimises as possible, and bring to fruition as much of the original concept as possible. Yes some developers are very ignorant of what makes a good building, and i think that most architects are ignorant of what it takes to get a building built (financially). it should not be a "us vs. them" mentallity. the lilly white and pure architect/god. Vs. the dirty, and greedy developer. we need to learn from each other, and in the process create more and more great buildings, from better designed super markets, to more inspiring museums.
gruen, cool...i say the plans for that house, very nice. what type of work are you doing in Michigan?
you are so right about mixed neighborhoods, ya the drug dealers will leave you alone but its those crazy ass junkies that follow them that can be the problem.
if you are in h-town sometime let me know i'd like to hear more about your experiences with project row house
i think you guys are flogging the wrong horse ...
you're painting with a pretty broad brush with some of these criticisms of the development community ... what you say does not square necessarily with my own fairly-extensive experience working with developers
as in our profession, there are good developers and there are bad developers, just like there are good architects and bad architects ... and, in both groups, most are probably somewhere in between those extremes ...
i do agree that there are too many developers out there who give higher priority to efficiency and cost-effective design than they do to aesthetics ... they will do this only as long as the consumers for their properties don't seem to care and don't demand a higher standard ...
if you want to change the situation, change the way the average building user thinks about their environment ... raise THOSE expectations and you will raise the quality of work produced by developers across the board ...
market forces, baby ....
I don't think esthetics are an issue for many architects, although as far as the user is concerned, they usually carry plenty of weight.
some developers do care if a housing development, for instance, will have a negative impact on local ecology / storm-water drainage / livability...but they seem to be very few and far between.
Most, like the one that I currently work for, are interested only in the bottom line. All other decisions fall victim to the profitability of the product.
I agree that educating the user is of foremost concern, as is coming up with alternatives that please both the money hungry developer and take into account the multiplicity of other issues concerned (especially with huge residential developments). This is where architecture the public service needs to step-up its game, and hold itself accountable.
To be honest, I feel like a sell-out at the moment, but I fight it every day, and try to communicate alternatives. (unfortunately, my lack of experience leaves me frustrated and my employer not very convinced).
I just re-read my first line, and it sounds ridiculous. I wish that were true, but I guess stating it so factually is quite ludicrous.
ap ... come on man ... don't feel like a sell out ... you have more influence over architecture where you are now than you'll ever have in a design firm ... you can tell your architect when to stop designing and when to try another scheme ...
figure out how to make it work ...
good luck
that's part of the problem...there's no "architect" besides me, just the boss and a service that stamps what my boss (builder/developer) pays him to. Don't get me wrong, it's great experience, just frustrating to communicate to this crowd when I'm fresh outta design school. I'm trying though, and I intend on doin' my best to "figure out how to make it work." My main aspiration is to make some difference, as miniscule as it may end up being...thanks for the encouragement.
AP ... learn all that you can ... develop new skills ... establish new relationships ... then take them somewhere else where you can make a positive impact ...
long as you're getting paid and learning something, you're doing ok
I am developing a business model for collaborative building development. When I have some more info I'll let you know, but I am fairly confident that it will work to produce better buildings - at least as far as it can be applied/accepted.
And AP, I am in a similar boat to you. Quizzical's advice applies. Absorb everything you can, and in a few years time you will have the knowledge and contacts to do your own thing.
Remember, you can learn what to do and what not to do - both can have equal value.
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.