i find it maddening to come across professionals, engineers even, who don't believe in architecture or that it has any value at all on a project.
then of course, the moment they redecorate their OWN house they come running to you to ask what colours they should pick.
what's going on here? what do you say to these people? why is there this double standard that their own home must be beautiful but all else is acceptable to lay to waste? is it just selfish perception?
After six to ten years as an engineer you get into project management, kill yourself, hate everything but your beautiful cocoon home, or go back to school for architecture.
i think that, unfortunately for us, velo, architects have done a lot over the years to reinforce this ignorance and mistrust of what we bring to a project. it's now our job to undo what has been done in the past.
key to this is building a case for your proposals that is beyond aesthetic. what does your proposal DO? get them beyond the 'redecorate' discussion of colors and trim profiles.
also key is communicating your values to the client, engineer, etc in a way that makes sense to them. why do you think that they should care or believe? just because you think your ideas are impt? convince them - subtly, not forcefully. try to bring them along so that they feel they came to understand the imptce of the architectural solution on their own.
i've also found it valuable not to talk with non-architects about the imptce of 'architecture' in the abstract but about the specific architectural issues of individual projects: e.g., what happens when you put a bldg between these existing ones? what materials does it suggest we use? why would we want to have blank walls on the south when we can bring light into the space? can we design something so that the lights almost never have to be turned on? why would we change to pvc-based vinyl siding when we turn the corner? how can we do this project without cutting down all of the trees on the site? if we use that dark blue, how many more lights will have to be installed to get a decent light level; how about this lighter, more reflective color? how about a material that doesn't get painted at all but has integral color?
using decisions like these you can make baby steps and soon you have a project that, through a series of truly architectural decisions, accomplishes the goals of those involved. and you haven't had to convince them of the imptce of 'architecture' at all.
architects have had to become a little more humble since over the last 25-30 years.
Steven's right ... until we start defining our solutions in terms of what clear-cut benefits accrue to the client, we'll not be taken seriously on the other aspects of what we do ... we have to design for our clients, not for ourselves and the magazines
How come no one has to mention, in addition to the style points aformentioned, the value of composing and planning a building? If I was paid for the genius of the clients Ive worked with who say, "I designed, my architect drew it up", I'd be wealthy. The working a concept into a plan that handels the mechanical, technical and asthetic concerns is what we're about.
Side note - part of the problem is that I've met few architects that do not have some sort of personality defect. Really - most of us are losers ( not me) who in the business world get run over. Most Architects probly never played organized sports, joined a fraternity and stowed themselves away in their rooms listening to the Morrissey for most of their lives. This is why people dont take us seriously. I cant think of one Architect I've worked with under the age of 40 who hasnt spent the entire time Im working with them making sarcastic comments.
last week i went to a lecture toyo ito was giving for a spanish-japanese workshop thing at my uni. damndest thing but even ITO is wondering what the hell the meaning of architectre is. He went on for quite a long time how the TOD project was a dissapointment (mostly because the owner wouldn't let him design some of the furniture, opting for zaha instead), then talked about the Mikimoto Ginza building in teh same tone.
it was kind of funny, but also refreshing to hear that even ito can't quite deal with his clients and the things they ask of him. With the Ginza building he seemed to feel a bit like a whore, suggesting that he had been reduced to a glorified package designer, and if that was what architecture was about he wasn't the man for the job...i was impressed with the admission, even if it wasn't exactly public.
he kept asking "what is the point of architecture?", never answering exactly. he just moved on, showing the new opera-house in taiwan, which he was quite happy with, and excited about.
which was i guess in an indirect way, his answer. move on, do better things, and don't worry overly much about the people who aren't on the same wavelength...
it's definitely one of the difficulties in promoting the profession, jump. if we're asking 'what is the point of architecture?', how are we to be trusted to give good value.
i hope that we never curtail the 'what is the point of architecture?' discussion, however. within the discipline of architecture, i think it's one of the most impt things we do - our ethical compass in some ways. while i'm fairly certain that the legal and medical professions have similar ethical/existential discussions, i'm not sure why these dialogues don't undermine THEIR professions to the same extent that they do ours.
the difference must be in the arts aspect of what we do. as long as we talk science/pragmatism/business we do well. once art/aesthetic/intention/theory comes into it, we start getting sideways glances.
i've simply stopped sharing my internal goals with my clients - building two arguments for every project. i'm sure that's not the answer.
and i am nothing of a builder
but here i dreamt i was an architect
and i built this balustrade
to keep you home, to keep you safe
from the outside world
Thats interesting. Make two arguments, one for yourself, one for your client...? I think this is important. Enthusiasm sells... If you believe in your work, your client will too. The problem is that if your own goals are completely at odds with your clients', the design cannot be very convincing anyway I think because aren't we half selling a service and half selling our creative energy...? Isn't the trick to find the overlap in goals, or to align the goals, let energy flow between them?
not so sure about the dual argument route. not that i would tell a client where i saw a project in terms of my career plan or anything...still the thought that i would have a desire to do something and then hide it with banter seems a little disengenuous.
having goals that are creative can i suppose be manipulated by the client if s/he wants mediocrity, at least on the projects i have worked on where it has been an issue this was the case. after a few bad experiences of that sort my approach is not to hold back from the client but rather to be up front about what i do. if they are not interested or the vibe isn't right for either of us that's fine, we can go our separate ways. no hassle. i am not desparate for work right now though, and saying no is not that painful. will see how i feel when the economy turns wonky..
i quite like the OMA route, with style completely overwhelmed by a logic of function and finance that the client understands (sounds like old fogey used a version of this?). but even then i think the client has to like the design enough to give the architect some room to go forward in...or no?
`Once well underground,' Mole said, `you know exactly where you are. Nothing can happen to you, and nothing can get at you. You're entirely your own master, and you don't have to consult anybody or mind what they say. Things go on all the same overhead, and you let 'em, and don't bother about 'em. When you want to, up you go, and there the things are, waiting for you.'
The Badger simply beamed on him. `That's exactly what I say,' he replied. `There's no security, or peace and tranquillity, except underground. And then, if your ideas get larger and you want to expand--why, a dig and a scrape, and there you are! If you feel your house is a bit too big, you stop up a hole or two, and there you are again! No builders, no tradesmen, no remarks passed on you by fellows looking over your wall, and, above all, no weather.
Look at Rat, now. A couple of feet of flood water, and he's got to move into hired lodgings; uncomfortable, inconveniently situated, and horribly expensive. Take Toad. I say nothing against Toad Hall; quite the best house in these parts, as a house. But supposing a fire breaks out--where's Toad? Supposing tiles are blown off, or walls sink or crack, or windows get broken--where's Toad? Supposing the rooms are draughty--I hate a draught myself--where's Toad? .....
No, up and out of doors is good enough to roam about and get one's living in; but underground to come back to at last--that's my idea of home'
"...Contrary to popular belief, you don't always have to tell people everything you know..." -- Old Fogey.
This thread is one of the most important I've read here. That and the one about which shoes are good. I think Old Fogey has put his finger on something. That is, resist the impulse toward full disclosure. (Same from Nevermore). There is a time to simply not talk, which is a difficult task for most architects. Building programming questions and budget concerns alone are enough to occupy most clients -- most other discussions only serve to increase client anxieties.
It is often necessary to possess unexpressed thoughts. This doesn't mean one is "hiding" anything or "creating two arguments". It just means that an architect need not become too autobigraphical and/or indulgent when presenting information to the client.
If architects were doctors, they'd skip anesthesia for their patients so that the patients would fully appreciate each and every aspect of the process.
just to play a little devil's advocate... but isn't that a little presumptuous of the architect to have to "hide" things from the client? as designers, if we were to properly educate a client as to why things were done wouldn't that provide a greater understanding of the work that we do?
yes, it might help simplify things and avoid conflict, but isn't an educated client and public what we're after? if good architecture and design are valued and understood, we wouldn't have to mask things to the client.
as rj said > great conversation. and oldfogey's last shows the extent to which he has wrestled with this - like i have.
the burden during the design phases of the project is to show the clients how you've solved their problem. though i said above that i
stopped sharing my internal goals with my clients i will acknowledge that - on occasion - i have seen a receptivity on the part of some clients and have shared my design thinking with them. this discussion takes a very specific form, however: not 'this is what's driving the project' (architect-focused) but 'these ideas/concepts are part of the box of tools that i used in addressing your needs' (client-focused).
clients that are receptive might buy into this discussion - even adopt it as their own way of thinking about the project and a challenge for how to move it forward. others simply don't want to be bothered. it's up to us as the architect to be able to read what the client's goals are before we tip our hand and allow ourselves to be perceived as self-indulgent.
after all, it's true, in't? our conceptualization and intention in developing a project is not the endgame. it's a means: giving us the tools to solve the problem, a framework through which to understand the challenge in a holistic way. thus the projects in school where you can base a design on a piece of music or a chair. the starting point is less impt than the process of turning thinking into a proposal.
the importance of architecture?
i find it maddening to come across professionals, engineers even, who don't believe in architecture or that it has any value at all on a project.
then of course, the moment they redecorate their OWN house they come running to you to ask what colours they should pick.
what's going on here? what do you say to these people? why is there this double standard that their own home must be beautiful but all else is acceptable to lay to waste? is it just selfish perception?
After six to ten years as an engineer you get into project management, kill yourself, hate everything but your beautiful cocoon home, or go back to school for architecture.
i think that, unfortunately for us, velo, architects have done a lot over the years to reinforce this ignorance and mistrust of what we bring to a project. it's now our job to undo what has been done in the past.
key to this is building a case for your proposals that is beyond aesthetic. what does your proposal DO? get them beyond the 'redecorate' discussion of colors and trim profiles.
also key is communicating your values to the client, engineer, etc in a way that makes sense to them. why do you think that they should care or believe? just because you think your ideas are impt? convince them - subtly, not forcefully. try to bring them along so that they feel they came to understand the imptce of the architectural solution on their own.
i've also found it valuable not to talk with non-architects about the imptce of 'architecture' in the abstract but about the specific architectural issues of individual projects: e.g., what happens when you put a bldg between these existing ones? what materials does it suggest we use? why would we want to have blank walls on the south when we can bring light into the space? can we design something so that the lights almost never have to be turned on? why would we change to pvc-based vinyl siding when we turn the corner? how can we do this project without cutting down all of the trees on the site? if we use that dark blue, how many more lights will have to be installed to get a decent light level; how about this lighter, more reflective color? how about a material that doesn't get painted at all but has integral color?
using decisions like these you can make baby steps and soon you have a project that, through a series of truly architectural decisions, accomplishes the goals of those involved. and you haven't had to convince them of the imptce of 'architecture' at all.
architects have had to become a little more humble since over the last 25-30 years.
Steven's right ... until we start defining our solutions in terms of what clear-cut benefits accrue to the client, we'll not be taken seriously on the other aspects of what we do ... we have to design for our clients, not for ourselves and the magazines
How come no one has to mention, in addition to the style points aformentioned, the value of composing and planning a building? If I was paid for the genius of the clients Ive worked with who say, "I designed, my architect drew it up", I'd be wealthy. The working a concept into a plan that handels the mechanical, technical and asthetic concerns is what we're about.
Side note - part of the problem is that I've met few architects that do not have some sort of personality defect. Really - most of us are losers ( not me) who in the business world get run over. Most Architects probly never played organized sports, joined a fraternity and stowed themselves away in their rooms listening to the Morrissey for most of their lives. This is why people dont take us seriously. I cant think of one Architect I've worked with under the age of 40 who hasnt spent the entire time Im working with them making sarcastic comments.
I had to get that out, freaks.
Architecture is extremely important. Just ask yourself if your definition of Architecture is important, and if you say yes then, for whom?
lol
last week i went to a lecture toyo ito was giving for a spanish-japanese workshop thing at my uni. damndest thing but even ITO is wondering what the hell the meaning of architectre is. He went on for quite a long time how the TOD project was a dissapointment (mostly because the owner wouldn't let him design some of the furniture, opting for zaha instead), then talked about the Mikimoto Ginza building in teh same tone.
it was kind of funny, but also refreshing to hear that even ito can't quite deal with his clients and the things they ask of him. With the Ginza building he seemed to feel a bit like a whore, suggesting that he had been reduced to a glorified package designer, and if that was what architecture was about he wasn't the man for the job...i was impressed with the admission, even if it wasn't exactly public.
he kept asking "what is the point of architecture?", never answering exactly. he just moved on, showing the new opera-house in taiwan, which he was quite happy with, and excited about.
which was i guess in an indirect way, his answer. move on, do better things, and don't worry overly much about the people who aren't on the same wavelength...
it's definitely one of the difficulties in promoting the profession, jump. if we're asking 'what is the point of architecture?', how are we to be trusted to give good value.
i hope that we never curtail the 'what is the point of architecture?' discussion, however. within the discipline of architecture, i think it's one of the most impt things we do - our ethical compass in some ways. while i'm fairly certain that the legal and medical professions have similar ethical/existential discussions, i'm not sure why these dialogues don't undermine THEIR professions to the same extent that they do ours.
the difference must be in the arts aspect of what we do. as long as we talk science/pragmatism/business we do well. once art/aesthetic/intention/theory comes into it, we start getting sideways glances.
i've simply stopped sharing my internal goals with my clients - building two arguments for every project. i'm sure that's not the answer.
architecture is very important...what would we stand in front of in our vacation pics without it???
you're right vado ...
the waters coming out of the wrong part of that fountain...
so then, what's the importance of Art ? ...
lol ..
sprung a leak .. ala "tom & jerry" style !!
and i am nothing of a builder
but here i dreamt i was an architect
and i built this balustrade
to keep you home, to keep you safe
from the outside world
Thats interesting. Make two arguments, one for yourself, one for your client...? I think this is important. Enthusiasm sells... If you believe in your work, your client will too. The problem is that if your own goals are completely at odds with your clients', the design cannot be very convincing anyway I think because aren't we half selling a service and half selling our creative energy...? Isn't the trick to find the overlap in goals, or to align the goals, let energy flow between them?
hmm.
not so sure about the dual argument route. not that i would tell a client where i saw a project in terms of my career plan or anything...still the thought that i would have a desire to do something and then hide it with banter seems a little disengenuous.
having goals that are creative can i suppose be manipulated by the client if s/he wants mediocrity, at least on the projects i have worked on where it has been an issue this was the case. after a few bad experiences of that sort my approach is not to hold back from the client but rather to be up front about what i do. if they are not interested or the vibe isn't right for either of us that's fine, we can go our separate ways. no hassle. i am not desparate for work right now though, and saying no is not that painful. will see how i feel when the economy turns wonky..
i quite like the OMA route, with style completely overwhelmed by a logic of function and finance that the client understands (sounds like old fogey used a version of this?). but even then i think the client has to like the design enough to give the architect some room to go forward in...or no?
`Once well underground,' Mole said, `you know exactly where you are. Nothing can happen to you, and nothing can get at you. You're entirely your own master, and you don't have to consult anybody or mind what they say. Things go on all the same overhead, and you let 'em, and don't bother about 'em. When you want to, up you go, and there the things are, waiting for you.'
The Badger simply beamed on him. `That's exactly what I say,' he replied. `There's no security, or peace and tranquillity, except underground. And then, if your ideas get larger and you want to expand--why, a dig and a scrape, and there you are! If you feel your house is a bit too big, you stop up a hole or two, and there you are again! No builders, no tradesmen, no remarks passed on you by fellows looking over your wall, and, above all, no weather.
Look at Rat, now. A couple of feet of flood water, and he's got to move into hired lodgings; uncomfortable, inconveniently situated, and horribly expensive. Take Toad. I say nothing against Toad Hall; quite the best house in these parts, as a house. But supposing a fire breaks out--where's Toad? Supposing tiles are blown off, or walls sink or crack, or windows get broken--where's Toad? Supposing the rooms are draughty--I hate a draught myself--where's Toad? .....
No, up and out of doors is good enough to roam about and get one's living in; but underground to come back to at last--that's my idea of home'
Chapter- 4 The Wind in the Willows"
"...Contrary to popular belief, you don't always have to tell people everything you know..." -- Old Fogey.
This thread is one of the most important I've read here. That and the one about which shoes are good. I think Old Fogey has put his finger on something. That is, resist the impulse toward full disclosure. (Same from Nevermore). There is a time to simply not talk, which is a difficult task for most architects. Building programming questions and budget concerns alone are enough to occupy most clients -- most other discussions only serve to increase client anxieties.
It is often necessary to possess unexpressed thoughts. This doesn't mean one is "hiding" anything or "creating two arguments". It just means that an architect need not become too autobigraphical and/or indulgent when presenting information to the client.
If architects were doctors, they'd skip anesthesia for their patients so that the patients would fully appreciate each and every aspect of the process.
just to play a little devil's advocate... but isn't that a little presumptuous of the architect to have to "hide" things from the client? as designers, if we were to properly educate a client as to why things were done wouldn't that provide a greater understanding of the work that we do?
yes, it might help simplify things and avoid conflict, but isn't an educated client and public what we're after? if good architecture and design are valued and understood, we wouldn't have to mask things to the client.
educate the client ? .. how ?? .. they always think they know better !!
as rj said > great conversation. and oldfogey's last shows the extent to which he has wrestled with this - like i have.
the burden during the design phases of the project is to show the clients how you've solved their problem. though i said above that i
stopped sharing my internal goals with my clients i will acknowledge that - on occasion - i have seen a receptivity on the part of some clients and have shared my design thinking with them. this discussion takes a very specific form, however: not 'this is what's driving the project' (architect-focused) but 'these ideas/concepts are part of the box of tools that i used in addressing your needs' (client-focused).
clients that are receptive might buy into this discussion - even adopt it as their own way of thinking about the project and a challenge for how to move it forward. others simply don't want to be bothered. it's up to us as the architect to be able to read what the client's goals are before we tip our hand and allow ourselves to be perceived as self-indulgent.
after all, it's true, in't? our conceptualization and intention in developing a project is not the endgame. it's a means: giving us the tools to solve the problem, a framework through which to understand the challenge in a holistic way. thus the projects in school where you can base a design on a piece of music or a chair. the starting point is less impt than the process of turning thinking into a proposal.
So today afternoon, I went for lunch with one of the electrical engineers on the project .. and he says to me ..
"whats the point of you architects ? ... I mean what do you guys really do and how do you guys contribute to the project?"
needless to say .. I gave him a solid dressing down ( I think he was near tears !!" but I wasn't done .......
In his defence ... he's new to the field ... first job out of school
but the next time he talks crap like that .... .....
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.