good food- eatable
good clothing-wearable
good system- workable

crap!

ok, boys and girls ... let's focus ... why all the angst ... it's just a question ... not trying to antagonize anybody

agfa8x's correct ... what i was hoping for was some rational discussion about better ways to expain to the untrained and the uninitiated what we're trying to achieve as architects, beyond just putting up walls and a roof ... as i observed earlier, most don't "get it" and most really don't want to listen to theory

in discussion with colleagues here in my community, we find that many people who make, or influence, decisions about the selection of an architect find it very hard to distinguish between a good architect and a hack ... they often don't perceive the subtleties and assume the service is a commodity ... and, they often don't want to spend a lot of time on the subject ... if we truly want to change the quality of our communities, we have to work together to attack that problem

beta (despite his abusive nature) is right about the subjectivity of this question ... i'm not trying to sum up the history of architecture in 25-words ... i'm just want to explore different people's view about the key characteristics that distinguish "architecture" from just "building"

i chose the "25 words or less" approach because we often don't have much time to make our case ... an elevator ride, a walk to the car, a chat at church ... i'm just trying to get to the essence of the question so we (good architects) get invited to that second meeting

i think the prior discussion illustrates how difficult this is ... if you don't want to play, don't ... but, there's little need to get so antagonistic

lots of people have no taste and don't know they have no taste. these people don't need architects.

other people have no taste, but at least know they have no taste and are willing to pay a design consultant (ie architect) to suppply their deficiency.

(although some days I think I agree with o+)

agfa8x ... in our role as architects, would it not be better for us to persuade more people that we can be helpful ...

i seem to remember that when i sat for my license, one of the obligations i assumed was to protect society ... i'm pretty sure that entails more than just keeping the building from falling down ... i'm pretty sure it also means being an advocate for improving the livability of the communities in which we live ... advocacy involves an ability -- and a willingness -- to sell an idea

not exactly sure where this originated and it's not all that well written, but it has relevance to this debate: new role of the architect

i think you miss the point. the moment YOU define what is good, you immediately cast everything else as bad. so for you the above is good, but what if i tell you that it is not good, not good for me, not good for architecture, and not good for society. then what?

i think sir abra, faia clearly has the right idea.

when terraforming, it's all good - the top right of the image is the other good architecture project

beta: look, i'm paid (and trained) to make professional judgments every day ... i'm prepared to live with the idea that you may not like what i think is "good" ... as practitioners, we deal with that sort of subjectivity every day

i think YOU miss my point ... effective communication is difficult in any medium ... nevertheless, despite the vagaries of human communication, i'm prepared to take the stance (with my clients and prospective clients and my community) that my work is "good architecture" ... the stance that my work is "better" than the vast majority of what's being constructed around here

this whole exercise is solely about how to give voice to those notions ... to share different ideas that might be helpful to one another ... i don't expect your voice and my voice to be the same ... in fact, i'd be stunned if there was any similarity between our views on the subject

at some level, i really don't care what you think about my work ... but i do care what my clients think ... and i do care about communicating effectively with them on that subject

if you agree that there exists different views, voices, etc....then why ask for a compact definition? i am well aware of what effective communication can do for me, the client, architecture etc, but in my communication i don't believe i make assumptions about what is good and what is bad. now, i think we can agree that builder homes are bad, developers are bad, and the mis-use of valuable resources is also bad. bad would also be to build a copy of fallingwater on the jersey shore, build a copy of ando's work in death valley, or rebuild the WTC in lake havasue[sp]...i am not interested in this is good and this bad, because at the end of the day, what does that comparison do for you? can it really communicate why your design is effective, and meets the client needs?

hell i design an addition for a couple, did sketches, 3d model presented all of the ideas quite well, and at the end of the conversation the clients said to me, you captured everything we wanted, it was like you read our minds - they were over joyed with the prospects ahead, that is until i communicated the fee and they balked, even after i explained in detail the reasons for the fee.

beta: well, everybody's got to do what works for them ... i thought this might be an interesting exercise for some ... guess i was wrong ... let's move on

sorry you got stiffed after spending some much time, man

beta, why didn't you discuss fees before you did the work?

bluegoose, you can't back out now!

i think you're seeing it the way I see it now: that there is a distinction between 'what is good architecture?' and
'how can we persuade the public of a need for architects?'
The first is a life's work; and the second is a question of marketing.

I guess I've always naively felt that if we do good architecture, eventually people will come around. Part of the problem is people see so little of it in their everyday lives; which comes back to o+'s point about elitism.

btw, I disagree with betadine on principle. you can't sit on the fence by refusing to define good. every project you do (even if unpaid for!) is a statement about goodness.

the moment you must tell somebody that you or your profession is relavant is the moment that you are no longer relevant.

maybe architects will become more relevant when architects take more into account people which inhabit their creations (as has been stated by others on this thread and others), and deal less with style wars.

Puddles, I just read this post for the first time. Are you rewording Patrick Bateman's monolog when dining with the Pierce and Pierce crew and Stash at Espace?

e - to discuss the fee prior to producing any ideas or design would seem to me akin to showing my hand before all the cards are dealt. perhaps in the future i will need to get paid for the schematic design prior to starting the process, but as an unknown quantity i could not in good conscience ask for money without proving my ability to produce a work the client wants.

agfa - you are right, every project we each do does or should define what we believe, but at the same time i think that has more to say about what makes a good architect, and not about architecture. i think the methods we imploy and integrity we show to the client, site, and our own interests are critical to creating good architecture. so if you are looking for my definition of good, that would sum it up.

or, more to the point, puddles, are you drunk?

beta, i don't understand when you say " to discuss the fee prior to producing any ideas or design would seem to me akin to showing my hand before all the cards are dealt." how is discussing fees showing your hand before all the cards are dealt?

discussing fees upfront should always be done. no one starts playing a game and then half way though is told what the rules of the game are. that's not fair to the other side. generating ideas without pay and then seeing if the client likes them enough to move forward is called spec work. in my opinion, spec work should not be done. you are in an ideas and design based profession, and you should get paid for generating them.

e - there is some speculation to that, but at the end of the process i have something to use for unbuilt work competitions and for my own development.

the problem i saw was that i didn't have a sense of what this design would entail in terms of detailing, length of time, etc. until i produced a schematic package. after producing that package, and getting the clients on board with the idea, i put together a detailed proposal. there were no games played, i explained to the client that i felt uncomfortable talking about fees without producing something first, and of course they agreed. for a guy with little experience, this seemed the right thing to do, but as i said i will probably change that process in the future.

perhaps i could have said it will cost you x dollars, without doing anything, and if they said thanks but no thanks i could have saved myself some time, but then i would not have the work i produced or the experience to learn from.

i see. getting back to one of your initial thoughts, i think establishing fees that you and your client could agree to for you to produce schematics would serve you both well. at least you both feel like you got something, financially speaking, out of the process. as you grow, you will find a process that best serves you. best of luck beta.

yes and yes

Architecture is building that stimulates imaginative inhabitation

or

Architecture, as opposed to mere building, encourages the imaginitave perception of it.

This notion also applies to Art, as opposed to mere craft.

puddles - very nice. I've seen it several times and missed the reference. Kudos.

it is only hard to deliver in that it is not ambitious and ahead of our time.

"the moment you must tell somebody that you or your profession is relavant is the moment that you are no longer relevant"

hello ... look around ... for a high proportion of the public, we're only in the game because the law says we have to be in the game ... we're a line item in the budget that most clients want to keep as small as possible ... few really understand the value offered by mainstream architects ... let's get our heads out of the sand, please ...

bg is right: if we, as a profession, don't start approaching this as a public relations problem, we're sunk ,,, if we don't start demonstrating our value in meaningful non-pop-culture ways besides the Art & Leisure section of the NY Times, we're going to continue fading into the background

Read both the article and the accompanying discussion ... particularly the post by Laura on 7/18.

This should be fun !

does that even qualify as an 'article'? the whole premis is flawed. besides the fact he lumps engineering, ID and landscape into the same boat as arch, it reads like copy from a worlds fair from the 50's.

quizzical is right that it's a relevancy problem, but instead of trying to demonstrate and convince, we need to actualize. look what the virus of new urbanism has done. as bad as it is, i'm impressed by the way they've taken over some development control, and been LEADERS in pushing their 'architecture'. if it wanted to, the AIA could and should be a very powerful real estate player, investing in the foundation of all architecture (real estate) istead of wasting money on trying to convince others of our worth. If we don't determine our own destiny, others will do it for us, as they already are. what's that saying, 'if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.."

hmmm - now there's an article designed to rub a few nerves raw in this forum - especially the part suggesting that practices of the future "will understand that design firms are run for clients, not for firm employees."

not sure i understand o+'s rant about aia - where's the constructive bit ? surely, you're not suggesting aia invest member dues in real estate instead of public relations ?

..hmm, wouldn't the best 'public relations' be a great neighborhood? and besides, i'd love it if my dues were actually invested, not just spent.

digger- architects will always be needed to stamp the drawings. oh yeah, engineers can do that. never mind.

his will be good..

o+ ... ok, assume for a moment that i could agree with you on the proposition that aia should lead by example -- by building -- how do you accomplish what you suggest in an organization as heterogeneous as the aia - look over the diversity of design opinion in just this thread - examine carefully the difficulty we have here achieving anything remotely approaching a consensus about what constitutes "good architecture"

do you think the members would ever delegate to the volunteer leadership the decision-making authority to invest member dues in real estate - who's going to pick the architect – who’s going to supervise the architect ?

life's way too short for the debate and angst that would attend that process … it would make the political process surrounding the WTC rebuild look like a cakewalk.

DEF: where the physical dimensions of a building are equal/less than the qualitative dimensions of meaning, technology, space and place. ABBR: whole >/ individual parts.

good architecture to me is when a layman sees/feels/respects/ acknowledges the place on his own with no placards or boards communicating what the place is about. nor should the architect should have communicated his concepts after the project is been built.

^ saw that happen at Zumthor's Thermal Baths.

I couldn't agree more.

([/i]Architecture is building that stimulates imaginative inhabitation
[/i])

from earlier in this thread:

Architecture is building that stimulates imaginative inhabitation

yeah AP, what took me four lines took you 1 albeit i never meant fear and other emotions, but yours takes into account. the same but with a little modification.

i only meant to re-iterate your definition, but i also appreciate the distinction that you made (including non-pleasant emotions)...

other examples from your experience?

I would include La Villette for something larger than a bldg...

yeah i meant non-pleasant emotions. 'fear'!? damn! i`m checking out a game called fear and i typed that.
i don`t think i could get any specific examples now probably because i`m an architect in one way. but from a lay man`s perspective many many...

(i always find it refreshing to turn to general semantics theory from the 1930's when trying to 'define' things.)

Whatever you can say about architecture is NOT architecture. architecture is what it is, something fundamentally unspeakable.


http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/gensemantics.html

good architecture is the critical examination of composition, function, and concept - or more simplistically; art, science, and philosophy. absent any of the three it's not architecture.

When the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

when i am experiencing it, 'good' architecture usually comes out and says 'Hello'..

Oh, like the Dodge Neon in the 90's?

Hello.

Or did it sau 'hi'?

hello hello

going back to the beginning...

good architecture is poetic