OK ... so we talk all the time here about design and how our clients are dweebs and all the problems we have getting our cool, creative designs built and how the firms we work for are clueless about creative thought.
Sometimes I think we lose sight of our real purpose ... i.e. to serve our clients well and build with economy and fulfill the program requirements and keep the rain outside, etc.
The other professsions ... i.e. medicine, law, accounting, etc. ... fundamentally are client centric ... they put the the clients' needs and satisfaction way towards the top of their list of priorities. They define success in terms of their clients' welfare and happiness. I might add, they also make more money than we do.
Why do architects so often define the success of our efforts primarily in terms of our own egos and whether other architects (and the magazines) think the work's cool ? Do we have it upside down ?
Oh, and that the general public thinks they have well-informed and legitimate opinions about architectural form, while no one without a specialized education claims to have significant knowledge of medicine, law or accounting. They don't think architecture requires any particularly useful extra knowledge, that we're only spouting about purely aesthetic matters and that they can therefore ignore our adivce and value. (That's not to say that a lot of starchitecture isn't significantly subjective aesthetic debate.)
I think that's exactly right, archtopus. Architects must be client-oriented to the degree that they must fulfill the needs of their clients and the people who will be using their "product," but architects are just as much in the realm of musicians, writers, painters and sculptors as they are in the realm of doctors, lawyers and accoutants. I think of architecture as a practical art, and clients more as patrons. the needs and to a large extent the whims of clients must be met, but architects should act not only as the machine by which clients acheive their buildings, but also as a sort of counselor and visionary. it's a delicate balance, I think, and in my view one that is out of balance in that it too often favors the client completely over the architect.
i appreciate the points made above by both archtopus and FLM, but I think the real issue that babs raises is that we think of ourselves as experts in balancing the realm of art and technology and should be respected, if not revered, by our clients and the public for that. on the other hand, i believe the vast majority of clients want the technology we can offer, but fear the art.
somewhere along the lines, those attributes we seem to value the most in our work have become the least valued by the people who hire us.
It's very difficult to compare our profession with others in terms of the client-pro relationship, as the differences are in the possible solutions to their problem.
When you go to a doctor, it's because you are sick (or might be sick). You aren't going to be "working with the doctor towards a solution"; you're going to let the doctor do their job and heal you, which is the only solution to the problem. Ideally.
Similarly for attorneys and accountants, you're going to let them do their jobs. In each case, there are very limited outcomes (depending on what you hire them to do. I won't pretend to know everything that attorneys and accountants actually do): you'll go to jail (or won't), you'll save $34,000 in taxes (or won't), etc. The solution doesn't require your input or direction.
Very small solution sets.
For architects, there are a thousand possible solutions to the problem, all of which can be influenced by the tastes of the client. Furthermore, you can design the perfect building that exceeds the client's expectations in every aspect and receives critical acclaim...but the roof leaks. Too bad. Know any good attorneys?
"somewhere along the lines, those attributes we seem to value the most in our work have become the least valued by the people who hire us."
I'm not sure if this is entirely on point, but once the newness factor wears off, every building is reviled until it's about 50 years old and everyone gets nostalgiac about it . Sixty years ago everyone hated those ghastly ornate Victorian buildings. Now preservationists are fighting to save stark Modernist buildings. We currently hate Brutalism. Just wait 15 years . . .
My take on it is that one of the most clear differences between Medicine / Law (along with many other professions) and Architecture is that generally, Architecture attempts (key word) to push people above the status quo, and Medicine / Law pulls people up when below status quo. -I know its very strange wording, but I think it gets the point across - This requires a much different client/professional relationship. And generally, other professional's work affects the client and people connected to the client. In our case, whether we like it or not, Architecture almost always impacts the environment, the communities,the occupants (not always the client), and etc. Even when we talk about aesthetics, I don't think it is always to be "cool" or "pretty". There are other purposes in well designed architecture that go way beyond that.
As a side note, most doctors don't have "clients," they have "patients." That means that the patients have a quantifiable disorder or disfunction that the doctors can methodically "fix." This is very different than how we operate. Although... I've been thinking that if we can somehow scientifically quantify the client's bad taste and/or ignorance of the impact a building can make, we can call our clients, patients...
I don't really think there's a big difference between a good doctor, lawyer, or accountant and a good architect. Competent professionals in any of those fields will propose solutions that, based on their education and experience, are the best way of addressing a problem, even if that solution is not the opinion the client wants to hear.
Client satisfaction is important to a point, but someone who places it above all else can quickly cross the line into being lazy, unimaginative, complacent, greedy, and even unethical.
Some might say that by taking (and often even aggressively pursuing) projects like site adapting boilerplate chain restaurants a good portion of our profession has crossed into that lazy, complacent state.
In fact, I believe the central dilemma of the profession over the past 25 or so years has been the struggle between those who believe that we should be a “visionary†profession in which every architect has a defined style or product and where there must be virtually all-or-nothing buy in from the client before pursuing a project (like so many “starchitectsâ€) or a service profession in which the client essentially takes the lead in setting the parameters for the project and the architect is merely there to provide support, coordination, and technical expertise.
Why can't we be both? I have my agenda- to build GOOD high performance buildings that minimize their carbon and environmental footprint and that serve the client and greater communities needs...
If architects keep creating crap like steven holl that ignores the clients criteria and leaks like plinked beer can like this house . They should be sued by the client for malpractice- twice as expensive and ignored their stated goals- no wonder architects have a bad rep. Can we haul Holl in front of the AIA ethics board and the registration board for this project????
*$@*^#$&!!!! it makes my blood boil when ego replaces good design.
'We wanted prefab, and instead we got a creative architect's iteration of prefab. It's not Green. It's not solar. It was twice over budget and construction was a nightmare and it's still not finished. But it is real architecture, and that's rare, with beauties only an artist can give you. I tell people, was Dr. Farnsworth happy with the house Mies van der Rohe gave her? She didn't have a closet, but she got a work of art.'
Are these people sheep???? Why pay $600 k for crap??? it's not art, they were defrauded!!!!
I can't say I feel too sorry for the clients here. Seeing that Holl's portfolio is not exactly bursting with prefab or green work and that Holl is widely known for having a huge ego, what did they really expect? Not only that, the clients are the ones who approved the drawings and signed on the dotted line. Why didn't they ask questions during the design and construction process, rather than blasting the architect after the thing was finished?
a good whore identifies the client's needs and personalities on initial contact, and in turn, uses them to serve his/her needs in a win-win manner.
i have often thought about how to response, adopt or reject the wisdom in phillip johnson's words and finally start to interpret his beautifully said metaphor after years of pondering.
architect as a whore is wide open to negative connotations. however, with the addition of the 'good' the pj's words start to reveal themselves.
sex is a pleasurable natural behavior and the whores, aka the world's oldest professionals, are the purveyors of that pleasure trade.
(at this point, don't waste your time to find it offensive or anti politically correct meaning to my use of the words 'whore' or 'architect', i am trying to tackle double metaphor here and it's easy to get misunderstood ok?)
anyway, getting back to my point;
a good whore is a pro, who's capable of telling a 'client' to go and 'fuck' themselves on the get go. this makes sense and avoids a bad building/design experience and possible violence.
i also found this subject driven to the point without the flamboyant poetry of pj's in 'architect's handbook of pro practice', the greatest contribution from AIA to architecture along with b-151 and other contract forms.
it has some pages, not directly quoting pj of course, but explaining the importance of identifying your client. a guide for a good fuck,
the good book says, 'the architects, after identifying themselves, must identify their clients and be ethical enough to bypass possible monetary gains on the short run, and avoid bad orgasm', in summary.
good end results (architecture) are often the product of this process and really depend on good identification of who the client is, so they can be serviced in a pleasurable and ethical way and be expected come back for more.
thus the architect has an ultimate duty of providing the pleasurable execution of architecture and be regulated enough to provide services free of diseases. even though it happens the other way around sometimes, architect must be wise enough to identify the situation as part of their professional practice and armed with protection from undesirable climax.
after that, all the beauties and necessities of architecture become available to society that gave birth to the whore, perhaps a little before it gave birth to the shelter.
There ar good lays and bad lays- as adults, most clients should be able to tell the difference. Holl is a chew your arm off and go to the doctor to get a preventive shots and montly testing... Skanky crack whores are not worth the time or money- quality over quantity anytime!
interesting... the beauty of architecture is in its diversity... there are a million ways something can be done. trying to pin it down, and put a lable on it turns it into accounting. is anybody out there trying to simplify what art is and give it a general terminology, other than, creative and self expression?
everybody finds their own balance. my boss for example has a family, loves travelling and BMW's, so i think its fair for him to design shitty apartments and rich peoples homes because he has different values. me on the other hand will go a different route. both are equally as valuable.
architecture is design, which is not "pure" service...
In other words, as Philarch says above, medicine and law are about bringing things up to status quo, the value is clear... We know when an operation is successful, or a legal battle is successful when the problem is fixed... Architecture does not have this type of value... There isn't the same immediacy of *need* and that's why we don't get paid as well... Somebody is going to pay alot more fees if they are backed up against the wall, where the cost of not paying is so fundamental to living in an obvious way (such as bodily health or legal crisis).
By contrast, people don't perceive the need for architecture in the same way... On the other hand, the value of architecture can be open ended... Architecture can often get its real value when it *adds value*, goes beyond the status quo.... In other words, we give the client something for ther money, something they didn't have before.
On one level, innovation is paramount to the service we provide, isn't it? Aren't we in part an *ideas profession*? Doesn't successful provision of our services mean that we have *created* something? It's not so with medicine or law in which there is an application of knowledge, a *fix*, but rarely any *invention* in the process of practice, medicine rarely includes something creative or genertive during the execution...?
And... are we also entertainers? Story tellers? Consultants on culture, economy, politics?
I still think that archtopus has come the closest to the answer here... We think they suck because they hire us, and then think that everything we do is shit. They constantly ask us why they're paying us, and devalue our ideas by saying, "but you're just trying to make it look a certain way" and not necessarily trying to see the problems that our solutions solve or the multiple viewpoints (client, city, neighborhood) that we have to negotiate, and often seem to think that they could do better. Many clients seem to really want to think they're being screwed when they hire an architect.
I guess my point is that yes, it's a messed up relationship, but it takes two to tango. I tend to think that architects looking down on their clients as 'dweebs' or whatever your choice words happen to be is mainly a reactionary thing. If we were approached by clients and dealt with in a way that indicated that our clients respected our knowledge and skills, were at least somewhat appreciative, and didn't automatically assume that everything we do is purely about looks and has no function (no thanks to Mr. Holl on this point!), then we would probably appreciate them a bit more, too. But when your clients consistantly treat you like they know more than you do, you tend to get a bit defensive about it.
I wonder if the problem is actually that we try to be specialist professionals like a doctor or lawyer, *imparting knowledge and expertise* when in reality we are more like design engineers, building something that they ask for, or selling solutions to problems... A doctor or lawyer doesn't have to sell or get "buy off" on a consultation in the way an architect does... We have to sell ideas to get the venture capital, we are managing an investment, not just passing on information... And the problem or scope changes with the whim of the client, something that doesn't really happen with the doctor or lawyer....
Would we fare better with clients if we understood our role as *ideas people* and *project managers* rather than as primarily *knowledge professionals*? Because, in some cases, clients may actually understand their own contexts better than the architect... In all honesty, we really don't have the expertise to tell them what their problem is, only the opportunities... "need" is such a waify thing in architecture...
I'd just like to say that this is a really stupid thread and an especially feeble discussion. Architecture is a floating target that can service whatever you project on it. Keep in mind: "I don't care how you arrange 3-5/8" metal studs and 5/8" gypsum board because the only thing my trendy Pumas are gonna touch is the resilient flooring."
Now, if you'd really like to pursue your "real purpose" then I'd suggest that you seek out Jesus first. As always...
IMHO I think selling our ideas is part of the nature of what we do... If we have trouble convincing a client of something it's either because maybe it really isn't that good an idea (maybe it really is just aesthetic but not parctical, or we have a bad client (or maybe just the wrong client for the type of work we do), or we just don't make a good enough sell (communicate, demonstrate value, capture interest, connect, etc.)...
it seems to me that the real difference between architecture and the other so-called professions (law, accounting, medicine, etc.) is that a large part of what we produce is subjective, whereas most of what those other professions address is either the product of scientific research (medicine), strong regulatory standards (FASB in accounting) or laws that are almost totally interpreted by some outside body (the legislative branch or appeals courts). "success" in those professions has some sort of objective measure ... the patient lives, the case is won, the IRS doesn't audit the return.
rather than lament these differences, perhaps we should celebrate the freedoms we enjoy as architects (sorry -- not trying to get all July 4thy on you here) AND recognize that those freedoms place on us special requirements if we want to be successful (individually and collectively) in our endeavors.
the part of our profession that we seem to value the most (design) is mostly a subjective endeavor ... any member of society has the freedom to express an opinion about what we do and, because what we do is not subject to much regulation or research (i'm talking about "creative design" here -- not codes, etc.) the fact that we've spent 5-6 years in school and x-number of years in practice doesn't necessarily diminish the strength or validity of the critic's views.
i know any number of architects who are brutally critical of the books and music and movies they experience, and these people rarely have any formal training in any of those disciplines. but, they know what they like and they're willing to express an opinion ! the public holds the same freedom with respect to our work.
bRink makes an important point ... it's not that what we do has little value ... it's more that we, as a profession, fail miserably at selling the value of design and earning the respect we crave ... we are weak at this as individuals and we're weak at this collectively ... we tend to expect our clients and the public to automatically respect what we do because we're the "experts" ... that's a charming notion, but it's not the reality of the world in which we live ... we can't expect that reality to change
unless we are willing to regularly engage in the sort of behavior that so many of us seem to abhor ... selling and PR.
Perhaps the answer we've all been dreading to hear is that the difference between architecture and medicine/law/accounting/etc is that our level of service expected by the clients is disproportiately high compared to what they are willing to pay us. i.e. Majority of the architects are way too busy trying to make ends met doing bread and butter work, and by the time we have enough power to flaunt our talent in the way we could only dream of, we're too tired to care about service.
Sigh. And I thought 'service' was synonymous to 'good design'...
i know some people are into 'traditional' medicine, but i personally have never asked my doctor to base his treatment on what they did in colonial times.
and my lawyer is expected to base his handling of my affairs by taking into account contemporary best practices and legislation, not those of past eras.
It comes down to two things in my mind (and I'll say this 'til I die, no doubt):
#1 Pay
#2 Talent
Architecture is one profession that does not pay for talent. Therefore, we are killing the chances of ever making more money. It's naive to think an entire profession can just charge more without reason. The only valid reason is to pay for talent, as with medicine, law, or any other profession I can think of before my coffee settles in.
Without a change in pay from firm to firm, how is a client supposed to know if someone is good? If I were a client I'd think 'if Holl is so great, why can't he charge more?' Why should I choose one architect over the other? Etc., etc.
Until architects become more specialized and can differentiate themselves from their peers based on talent, skills, etc., then we continue to diminish as a profession.
To go back to the original question, without specialization of skills (talent, cds, codes, etc.) then we fail to provide the highest level of skills for our clients and therefore just supply mediocre skills, not far from the mass produced/cheap crap that gets slapped up everwhere.
Even the other design professions recognize the need to specialize and pay according to talent and skills, not simply years of experience.
: could you clarify your comments a little further ... who are you indicting ? are you saying firms should pay higher wages for talent so they can charge higher fees ... or, are you saying firm's should specialize their services, thereby commanding higher fees, thereby enabling higher wages ?
As far as specialization, I think it depends on the size of the firm. I think it directly relates to the individual, too. I do not think everyone coming out of grad school will/can be a good designer, master the codes and cds, be a savvy business/client guy, etc.
No other profession that I can think of expects or requires this.
1. architect is poorly defined, but is such a diverse profession requiring a broad skill set, as compared to law/medicine/accounting in which teh target is more focused? talent in architecture is a moving target?
is this is the issue, does talent require a "team of all trades" vs. other professions which can be a one man show? it seems as though the issue is that the architect is often given a challenge of bringing specialties "up front" with specilists brought in as consultants, whereas a doctor for example has a more definitive and established avenue for referral to ever more specialized doctors (GP-->pediatrist-->x-ray tecchnician-->surgeon-->etc.)... Is the problem that general people don't deal with architects enough to understand the need for specialists?
2. As far as service goes, that there is such a range in quality and also diversity in the result (design) that clients are much more critical of whether the architect got the job done than say a doctor or a lwayer or accountant?
In other words, since every architect is going to produce something different, differences easily understandable to clients, it's more difficult for the architect, client satisfaction is a moving target too... In other words, with a doctor or lawyer, the average patient or client expects satisfactory results, and is therefore less discriminating in which doctor or lawye to go to. Whereas with an architect, they expect WHAT THEY WANT, which is much more difficult to hit... So the average client is more discriminating in which architect they choose, and it also means that the market is much more competitive, meaning that fees get you a range of service, we the providers get compete on fee, and here is no "going rate" for standard service...
To open up the question again, and in response to bRink, a doctor or lawyer does have to get buy off. A doctor can prescribe cyanide for my headache, but I don't have to take it. My lawyer can want to plead guilty, but I can fire her for doing so. If my accountant f*'s up my tax return, I can make him pay for it.
The only difference between architects and the other official professions is that we don't lobby the government on the basis of 'science.' Instead we relay on watered down science, i.e. engineering, which our best practitioners ignore in school and all our practitioners promptly forget when we graduate.
So if we were really interested in changing the nature of our professional cohones, we would make up architectural science. Then we could spout Gehry's first fish hypothesis at helpless undergrads, and Eseinmanns cynical law of profit at cocktail parties with our drunken friends.
Or some other junk. The point is that what passes for science in the professions is really revealed every two months when the New England Journal of Medicine publishes another article on how prayer does or does not improve your chances of recovery.
So, to the suggestion that our real purpose is to seek out Jesus -- If you have much of an interest in Jesus, you pay your minister to seek out Jesus for you. If he or she doesn't find (it? – which gender applies to a politically correct Jesus for hire?) should you sue?
true... i guess the doctor, lawyer and accountant do need to get buyoff... but i think there is a difference... maybe it's that, with those other professions, one "treatment" is taken in a bite sized morsel... That is, a doctor visit, a surgery, a tax return, a legal consultation (perhaps less so with a lengthy legal battle), all are manageable bites... You finish one, you are happy or unhappy, and you keeping going back for more, or you fire them, look for a new lawyer or doctor or accountant... These professions work for repeat clients, regularly... An architect does too, but each time its like major surgery.
with the architect, the contract is not bite sized... for many clients, itsa significant investment, and can run months and years... and the buyoff is not about future return visits or consultations, its for the curent "treatment"... it's almost like a doctor trying to get buyoff on the diagnosis, the execution of each part of the surgery (while the patient is lying open-chested on the operating table... or at least, the doctor has to get buyoff on the procedure every step of the way before hand with a 3D virtual model of the patient's organs...), the color of the sutures, and the medication after treatment...
The point is, whether the doctor or lawyer of accountant was successful is more black and white, or at least within 5 shades of gray... By contrast, in architecture, success it would seem is more like 50 shades of gray, spead over a length of tijme, producing a complex gray scale charcoal drawing... some parts black, some white, some gray, some off white, but the whole composition actually looks like something and has to function or mean something as well... Is the drawing a success or a failure? Who could say for sure? More importantly, does the client like it? Can we make it a little more black or white with photoshop? (basically the client is looking over your shoulder as you draw)
the architect offers a physical product, not just a service...
none of these other professions (dotcor, lawyer, accountant) do this... unless you consider your accounting reports a product... or maybe a cosmetic surgeon...
is selling a product/service hybrid very different in nature from selling a pure service? is the difficulty we are facing that we have a more complex marketing job, having to sell a product and a service?
but thats like saying the assembly plant provides me with my honda civic hybrid, not the designers, engineers, salespeople, business managers... the builder is part of it, but they aren't the ones doing the designing, selling, or managing the client's money, and presenting the product to the client...
its the architect that sells and markets the thing.
another thing about lawyers, dr.s, accountants is that we are all sold on the idea of them knowing what is right. That's changing, at least in medicine (thank God!).
The American Medical Association (AMA) is one of the most powerful organizations in the country. They dictate what is 'science' and what isn't, mostly based off of large drug companies deep pockets. It's a cyclical nightmare, imho, where the drug companies push for a drug to be sold, then the dr's prescribe them with little thought and we just gobble them up.
But now people are starting to ask 'so why do I have migraines (that's me)? How do I get rid of them without taking these pills that eat my throat and stomach raw (no one warned me about the side effects, of course)?'
To sum it up, I think that we assume too much and people are beginning to expect their dr's to work with them for a solution, not a scribbled prescription. It's a long way off, as most American's are so incredibly lazy that they certainly won't start thinking for themselves overnight, but it's happening.
Architect's need to sell their skills - what they are good at. I think there are far too many architects with little specialized skills and with little design talent. There is no differentiation between people and that's a big problem. Everything is marginalized in the real world.
I still can't see how architects can survive without some way of saying one firm is better than another. There are other designers in other professions that (good ones) that charge several times what the ones with lesser skills do and that's a good thing, it keeps things competitive in a professional environment (not just random arch competitions).
Don't get too caught up in comparing arch to other professions - it is fairly unique. The questions should be how not why.
we ALL think we have talent, we ALL think we know what is right, and EVERY firm thinks they are better than the other firms....
I suppose some firms have resigned themselves to make tons of money repeating similar designs for infill buildings over and over again, but there is a necessity for that type of firm too...
there's absolutely necessity for those buildings. the built environment shouldn't be relegated to second-rate architecture just because no one wants to put forth the effort. that's like a doctor that euthanizes all his cancer patients.
this isn't to say that architecture needs to be avant-garde or ground breaking, but should at the very least be thought out, elegant, and considerate.
and i also disagree that every firm thinks they are better than others. i think a good firm would have a healthy respect or even admiration for other firms' work. you don't need great buildings. just nice ones.
lots of the problems arise from the public's lack of education of what architecture really is or can do for them. education and leading by example is paramount.
bad lawyers lose cases. bad doctors don't heal/help patients. bad architects? they still get buildings built. this is the problem we should be addressing.
"bad architects? they still get buildings built. this is the problem we should be addressing."
so, beyond the obvious pieces of this question that can be handled by building codes and building officials, how do you suppose we get rid of these "bad architects" ?
how do you make -- and enforce -- a distinction between "good" and "bad" architecture ... the people who frequent this forum can't begin to agree on that question, and we're supposedly better informed on this issue than most.
i seem to remember that a certain adolf tried to dictate architectural taste 60 or so years back ... how'd that work out for him ?
of course everyone thinks they have talent, that's part of the problem. I think you'll find that in every profession, but at least in others people recognize others skills/talents and can acknowledge that someone is better than they are.
Also, as CAfA points out, I agree that the better designers will have much respect for other good designers.
The problem is probably due to the schooling we go through, where you have to develop an ego about your work to handle the crits. In other creative professions, it's just not nearly as difficult or stressful, not to mention most other creative professionals make more starting with significantly less stress and hours.
Personally, I have left a few dr's because they were lazy - they did not know about certain drugs, side effects, alternative treatments, new studies, etc., that anyone can find online in about 10 seconds. That's changing, though, as more and more are learning and willing to work with thier patients instead of declaring themselves right about everything.
Education is the key, for sure, but I also think that the public, in general, expects some differences besides the business cards of an architecture firm. It's not 'hire and architect, they'll make a great building you'll love', because I honestly don't believe that's the case.
Most buildings are ugly, and that's simply because those that are designing them don't have talent, don't have vision, or just don't care. Anyway you look at it, that sucks.
I'll always hold onto a quote from a NBBJ partner from years back "we always try to hire people that are better [more talented] than we are".
i think the focus here has been far too much on "science?" on what science do architects base their work? the only real sciences--structural engineering and environmental engineering to name a few of the few--are better handled by specialists who may happen to be architects, but who usually are not. i think the role of architects is better understood when architects are seen more as a sort of philosophers, sociologists, and of course planners than as engineers or scientists. our job in short is to create a work that can be inhabited and be a part of the greater built and natural world--hopefully it would be respectful, elegant and socially responsible, in my opinion. we are responsible for planning, creating and inovating, which is why anytime the designer, inventory or especially visionary of any project or thing is cited they are often called "the architect of" whatever. i think we, our clients, and the public would be better off if we saw architects on the whole in this way--as visionaries, not machinist, predictable scientists.
as a side and to rebut eb, i also think we'd be a lot better off with a little less jesus in america--at least the jesus of the radical religious right.
we're often thinking about architecture in terms of aesthetic good and bad. but often, i find that some buildings simply don't perform well.
a lot of "bad" architecture comes from designers who really don't take into consideration certain factors when designing. it's easy to design a building when you don't care about say, environmental considerations, or creating useful, pleasant spaces for the users.
aesthetic style is something that will always be debated. but it's easy to evaluate when a building just... works.
but a box works more often than not, right? Boxes are typically boring, but easy to get right.
I am with FLM - architects should be thought of as creative problem solvers, not science or math folk (can't tell you how many times I hear the 'what, you don't do the math for that sky scraper?').
I dunno...building's got to work, of course, but that should be the easy part. The experiential part, often directly related to the aesthetics (hopefully), is the part that is lacking and the part that is difficult.
methinks my main intent for this thread has been distorted as the discussion has progressed.
the word-police notwithstanding, i am not suggesting that law, medicine, accounting and architecture are directly comparable professions - clearly, they are not.
i am suggesting that architects do not - in general - put their clients first. we frequently seem to have an agenda for our building that is not necessarily in tune with our client's objectives. in this regard, we are very different from those other professions.
i contend that this trait does our profession much more harm than good
I agree with old fogies point that architecture does seem to lack the same immediacy of *need* that those other professions seem to have... That, and the fact that there is less clarity in the value of our expertise probably do account for the difference in how clients perceive as the value of our services... Is the reason that we get paid less, because the nature of our market different: we don't have a monopoly in or expertise, these other professions don't face outside competition, there are few substitutes for a doctor, a lawyer, or an accountant...
Most companies in expert services--such as lawyers, doctors, and accountants--think that their clients are buying expertise. But most prospects for these complex services cannot evaluate expertise; they cannot tell a really good tax return, a clever motion, or a perceptive diagnosis, But they can
tell if the relationship is good and if phone calls are returned. Clients are experts at knowing if they feel valued.
In most professional services, you are not selling expertise--because your expertise is assumed, and because your prospect cannot intelligently evaluate your expertise anyway. Instead, you are selling a relationship
. And in most cases, that is where you need the most work.
If you're selling a service, you're selling a relationship.Maybe the value of expertise is not really that important, and it's really about selling client relationships? (the expertise simply the bottom line, a minimum ground upon which we are selling a relationship?)
sorry, typos, my post made no sense... i'll post again later when i'm more coherent...
anyway, that's an interesting book on marking for our present day "service economy" that's sortof relevant to this discussion... it has some architecture references...
What's our REAL purpose ?
OK ... so we talk all the time here about design and how our clients are dweebs and all the problems we have getting our cool, creative designs built and how the firms we work for are clueless about creative thought.
Sometimes I think we lose sight of our real purpose ... i.e. to serve our clients well and build with economy and fulfill the program requirements and keep the rain outside, etc.
The other professsions ... i.e. medicine, law, accounting, etc. ... fundamentally are client centric ... they put the the clients' needs and satisfaction way towards the top of their list of priorities. They define success in terms of their clients' welfare and happiness. I might add, they also make more money than we do.
Why do architects so often define the success of our efforts primarily in terms of our own egos and whether other architects (and the magazines) think the work's cool ? Do we have it upside down ?
sigh.
first i would refrain from using the words 'dweebs' and 'cool' if you are looking for a serious response.
i think the whole discussion is overgeneralized, but i must ask when have you ever met a practicing architect that is not client oriented?
The difference is that medicine, law and accounting are not in the realm of art.
Oh, and that the general public thinks they have well-informed and legitimate opinions about architectural form, while no one without a specialized education claims to have significant knowledge of medicine, law or accounting. They don't think architecture requires any particularly useful extra knowledge, that we're only spouting about purely aesthetic matters and that they can therefore ignore our adivce and value. (That's not to say that a lot of starchitecture isn't significantly subjective aesthetic debate.)
I think that's exactly right, archtopus. Architects must be client-oriented to the degree that they must fulfill the needs of their clients and the people who will be using their "product," but architects are just as much in the realm of musicians, writers, painters and sculptors as they are in the realm of doctors, lawyers and accoutants. I think of architecture as a practical art, and clients more as patrons. the needs and to a large extent the whims of clients must be met, but architects should act not only as the machine by which clients acheive their buildings, but also as a sort of counselor and visionary. it's a delicate balance, I think, and in my view one that is out of balance in that it too often favors the client completely over the architect.
i appreciate the points made above by both archtopus and FLM, but I think the real issue that babs raises is that we think of ourselves as experts in balancing the realm of art and technology and should be respected, if not revered, by our clients and the public for that. on the other hand, i believe the vast majority of clients want the technology we can offer, but fear the art.
somewhere along the lines, those attributes we seem to value the most in our work have become the least valued by the people who hire us.
It's very difficult to compare our profession with others in terms of the client-pro relationship, as the differences are in the possible solutions to their problem.
When you go to a doctor, it's because you are sick (or might be sick). You aren't going to be "working with the doctor towards a solution"; you're going to let the doctor do their job and heal you, which is the only solution to the problem. Ideally.
Similarly for attorneys and accountants, you're going to let them do their jobs. In each case, there are very limited outcomes (depending on what you hire them to do. I won't pretend to know everything that attorneys and accountants actually do): you'll go to jail (or won't), you'll save $34,000 in taxes (or won't), etc. The solution doesn't require your input or direction.
Very small solution sets.
For architects, there are a thousand possible solutions to the problem, all of which can be influenced by the tastes of the client. Furthermore, you can design the perfect building that exceeds the client's expectations in every aspect and receives critical acclaim...but the roof leaks. Too bad. Know any good attorneys?
"somewhere along the lines, those attributes we seem to value the most in our work have become the least valued by the people who hire us."
I'm not sure if this is entirely on point, but once the newness factor wears off, every building is reviled until it's about 50 years old and everyone gets nostalgiac about it . Sixty years ago everyone hated those ghastly ornate Victorian buildings. Now preservationists are fighting to save stark Modernist buildings. We currently hate Brutalism. Just wait 15 years . . .
Interesting topic
My take on it is that one of the most clear differences between Medicine / Law (along with many other professions) and Architecture is that generally, Architecture attempts (key word) to push people above the status quo, and Medicine / Law pulls people up when below status quo. -I know its very strange wording, but I think it gets the point across - This requires a much different client/professional relationship. And generally, other professional's work affects the client and people connected to the client. In our case, whether we like it or not, Architecture almost always impacts the environment, the communities,the occupants (not always the client), and etc. Even when we talk about aesthetics, I don't think it is always to be "cool" or "pretty". There are other purposes in well designed architecture that go way beyond that.
As a side note, most doctors don't have "clients," they have "patients." That means that the patients have a quantifiable disorder or disfunction that the doctors can methodically "fix." This is very different than how we operate. Although... I've been thinking that if we can somehow scientifically quantify the client's bad taste and/or ignorance of the impact a building can make, we can call our clients, patients...
I don't really think there's a big difference between a good doctor, lawyer, or accountant and a good architect. Competent professionals in any of those fields will propose solutions that, based on their education and experience, are the best way of addressing a problem, even if that solution is not the opinion the client wants to hear.
Client satisfaction is important to a point, but someone who places it above all else can quickly cross the line into being lazy, unimaginative, complacent, greedy, and even unethical.
Some might say that by taking (and often even aggressively pursuing) projects like site adapting boilerplate chain restaurants a good portion of our profession has crossed into that lazy, complacent state.
In fact, I believe the central dilemma of the profession over the past 25 or so years has been the struggle between those who believe that we should be a “visionary†profession in which every architect has a defined style or product and where there must be virtually all-or-nothing buy in from the client before pursuing a project (like so many “starchitectsâ€) or a service profession in which the client essentially takes the lead in setting the parameters for the project and the architect is merely there to provide support, coordination, and technical expertise.
Why can't we be both? I have my agenda- to build GOOD high performance buildings that minimize their carbon and environmental footprint and that serve the client and greater communities needs...
If architects keep creating crap like steven holl that ignores the clients criteria and leaks like plinked beer can like this house . They should be sued by the client for malpractice- twice as expensive and ignored their stated goals- no wonder architects have a bad rep. Can we haul Holl in front of the AIA ethics board and the registration board for this project????
*$@*^#$&!!!! it makes my blood boil when ego replaces good design.
'We wanted prefab, and instead we got a creative architect's iteration of prefab. It's not Green. It's not solar. It was twice over budget and construction was a nightmare and it's still not finished. But it is real architecture, and that's rare, with beauties only an artist can give you. I tell people, was Dr. Farnsworth happy with the house Mies van der Rohe gave her? She didn't have a closet, but she got a work of art.'
Are these people sheep???? Why pay $600 k for crap??? it's not art, they were defrauded!!!!
I can't say I feel too sorry for the clients here. Seeing that Holl's portfolio is not exactly bursting with prefab or green work and that Holl is widely known for having a huge ego, what did they really expect? Not only that, the clients are the ones who approved the drawings and signed on the dotted line. Why didn't they ask questions during the design and construction process, rather than blasting the architect after the thing was finished?
a good whore identifies the client's needs and personalities on initial contact, and in turn, uses them to serve his/her needs in a win-win manner.
i have often thought about how to response, adopt or reject the wisdom in phillip johnson's words and finally start to interpret his beautifully said metaphor after years of pondering.
architect as a whore is wide open to negative connotations. however, with the addition of the 'good' the pj's words start to reveal themselves.
sex is a pleasurable natural behavior and the whores, aka the world's oldest professionals, are the purveyors of that pleasure trade.
(at this point, don't waste your time to find it offensive or anti politically correct meaning to my use of the words 'whore' or 'architect', i am trying to tackle double metaphor here and it's easy to get misunderstood ok?)
anyway, getting back to my point;
a good whore is a pro, who's capable of telling a 'client' to go and 'fuck' themselves on the get go. this makes sense and avoids a bad building/design experience and possible violence.
i also found this subject driven to the point without the flamboyant poetry of pj's in 'architect's handbook of pro practice', the greatest contribution from AIA to architecture along with b-151 and other contract forms.
it has some pages, not directly quoting pj of course, but explaining the importance of identifying your client. a guide for a good fuck,
the good book says, 'the architects, after identifying themselves, must identify their clients and be ethical enough to bypass possible monetary gains on the short run, and avoid bad orgasm', in summary.
good end results (architecture) are often the product of this process and really depend on good identification of who the client is, so they can be serviced in a pleasurable and ethical way and be expected come back for more.
thus the architect has an ultimate duty of providing the pleasurable execution of architecture and be regulated enough to provide services free of diseases. even though it happens the other way around sometimes, architect must be wise enough to identify the situation as part of their professional practice and armed with protection from undesirable climax.
after that, all the beauties and necessities of architecture become available to society that gave birth to the whore, perhaps a little before it gave birth to the shelter.
my 2...
There ar good lays and bad lays- as adults, most clients should be able to tell the difference. Holl is a chew your arm off and go to the doctor to get a preventive shots and montly testing... Skanky crack whores are not worth the time or money- quality over quantity anytime!
interesting... the beauty of architecture is in its diversity... there are a million ways something can be done. trying to pin it down, and put a lable on it turns it into accounting. is anybody out there trying to simplify what art is and give it a general terminology, other than, creative and self expression?
everybody finds their own balance. my boss for example has a family, loves travelling and BMW's, so i think its fair for him to design shitty apartments and rich peoples homes because he has different values. me on the other hand will go a different route. both are equally as valuable.
architecture is design, which is not "pure" service...
In other words, as Philarch says above, medicine and law are about bringing things up to status quo, the value is clear... We know when an operation is successful, or a legal battle is successful when the problem is fixed... Architecture does not have this type of value... There isn't the same immediacy of *need* and that's why we don't get paid as well... Somebody is going to pay alot more fees if they are backed up against the wall, where the cost of not paying is so fundamental to living in an obvious way (such as bodily health or legal crisis).
By contrast, people don't perceive the need for architecture in the same way... On the other hand, the value of architecture can be open ended... Architecture can often get its real value when it *adds value*, goes beyond the status quo.... In other words, we give the client something for ther money, something they didn't have before.
On one level, innovation is paramount to the service we provide, isn't it? Aren't we in part an *ideas profession*? Doesn't successful provision of our services mean that we have *created* something? It's not so with medicine or law in which there is an application of knowledge, a *fix*, but rarely any *invention* in the process of practice, medicine rarely includes something creative or genertive during the execution...?
And... are we also entertainers? Story tellers? Consultants on culture, economy, politics?
I still think that archtopus has come the closest to the answer here... We think they suck because they hire us, and then think that everything we do is shit. They constantly ask us why they're paying us, and devalue our ideas by saying, "but you're just trying to make it look a certain way" and not necessarily trying to see the problems that our solutions solve or the multiple viewpoints (client, city, neighborhood) that we have to negotiate, and often seem to think that they could do better. Many clients seem to really want to think they're being screwed when they hire an architect.
I guess my point is that yes, it's a messed up relationship, but it takes two to tango. I tend to think that architects looking down on their clients as 'dweebs' or whatever your choice words happen to be is mainly a reactionary thing. If we were approached by clients and dealt with in a way that indicated that our clients respected our knowledge and skills, were at least somewhat appreciative, and didn't automatically assume that everything we do is purely about looks and has no function (no thanks to Mr. Holl on this point!), then we would probably appreciate them a bit more, too. But when your clients consistantly treat you like they know more than you do, you tend to get a bit defensive about it.
I wonder if the problem is actually that we try to be specialist professionals like a doctor or lawyer, *imparting knowledge and expertise* when in reality we are more like design engineers, building something that they ask for, or selling solutions to problems... A doctor or lawyer doesn't have to sell or get "buy off" on a consultation in the way an architect does... We have to sell ideas to get the venture capital, we are managing an investment, not just passing on information... And the problem or scope changes with the whim of the client, something that doesn't really happen with the doctor or lawyer....
Would we fare better with clients if we understood our role as *ideas people* and *project managers* rather than as primarily *knowledge professionals*? Because, in some cases, clients may actually understand their own contexts better than the architect... In all honesty, we really don't have the expertise to tell them what their problem is, only the opportunities... "need" is such a waify thing in architecture...
Dear Friends,
I'd just like to say that this is a really stupid thread and an especially feeble discussion. Architecture is a floating target that can service whatever you project on it. Keep in mind: "I don't care how you arrange 3-5/8" metal studs and 5/8" gypsum board because the only thing my trendy Pumas are gonna touch is the resilient flooring."
Now, if you'd really like to pursue your "real purpose" then I'd suggest that you seek out Jesus first. As always...
With Love!
eb
IMHO I think selling our ideas is part of the nature of what we do... If we have trouble convincing a client of something it's either because maybe it really isn't that good an idea (maybe it really is just aesthetic but not parctical, or we have a bad client (or maybe just the wrong client for the type of work we do), or we just don't make a good enough sell (communicate, demonstrate value, capture interest, connect, etc.)...
it seems to me that the real difference between architecture and the other so-called professions (law, accounting, medicine, etc.) is that a large part of what we produce is subjective, whereas most of what those other professions address is either the product of scientific research (medicine), strong regulatory standards (FASB in accounting) or laws that are almost totally interpreted by some outside body (the legislative branch or appeals courts). "success" in those professions has some sort of objective measure ... the patient lives, the case is won, the IRS doesn't audit the return.
rather than lament these differences, perhaps we should celebrate the freedoms we enjoy as architects (sorry -- not trying to get all July 4thy on you here) AND recognize that those freedoms place on us special requirements if we want to be successful (individually and collectively) in our endeavors.
the part of our profession that we seem to value the most (design) is mostly a subjective endeavor ... any member of society has the freedom to express an opinion about what we do and, because what we do is not subject to much regulation or research (i'm talking about "creative design" here -- not codes, etc.) the fact that we've spent 5-6 years in school and x-number of years in practice doesn't necessarily diminish the strength or validity of the critic's views.
i know any number of architects who are brutally critical of the books and music and movies they experience, and these people rarely have any formal training in any of those disciplines. but, they know what they like and they're willing to express an opinion ! the public holds the same freedom with respect to our work.
bRink makes an important point ... it's not that what we do has little value ... it's more that we, as a profession, fail miserably at selling the value of design and earning the respect we crave ... we are weak at this as individuals and we're weak at this collectively ... we tend to expect our clients and the public to automatically respect what we do because we're the "experts" ... that's a charming notion, but it's not the reality of the world in which we live ... we can't expect that reality to change
unless we are willing to regularly engage in the sort of behavior that so many of us seem to abhor ... selling and PR.
give life to dreams - thats' it
give life to dreams
yeah
so dweeb, beyond super cool
dweeb on
To sum up all the responses above:
Perhaps the answer we've all been dreading to hear is that the difference between architecture and medicine/law/accounting/etc is that our level of service expected by the clients is disproportiately high compared to what they are willing to pay us. i.e. Majority of the architects are way too busy trying to make ends met doing bread and butter work, and by the time we have enough power to flaunt our talent in the way we could only dream of, we're too tired to care about service.
Sigh. And I thought 'service' was synonymous to 'good design'...
i know some people are into 'traditional' medicine, but i personally have never asked my doctor to base his treatment on what they did in colonial times.
and my lawyer is expected to base his handling of my affairs by taking into account contemporary best practices and legislation, not those of past eras.
It comes down to two things in my mind (and I'll say this 'til I die, no doubt):
#1 Pay
#2 Talent
Architecture is one profession that does not pay for talent. Therefore, we are killing the chances of ever making more money. It's naive to think an entire profession can just charge more without reason. The only valid reason is to pay for talent, as with medicine, law, or any other profession I can think of before my coffee settles in.
Without a change in pay from firm to firm, how is a client supposed to know if someone is good? If I were a client I'd think 'if Holl is so great, why can't he charge more?' Why should I choose one architect over the other? Etc., etc.
Until architects become more specialized and can differentiate themselves from their peers based on talent, skills, etc., then we continue to diminish as a profession.
To go back to the original question, without specialization of skills (talent, cds, codes, etc.) then we fail to provide the highest level of skills for our clients and therefore just supply mediocre skills, not far from the mass produced/cheap crap that gets slapped up everwhere.
Even the other design professions recognize the need to specialize and pay according to talent and skills, not simply years of experience.
: could you clarify your comments a little further ... who are you indicting ? are you saying firms should pay higher wages for talent so they can charge higher fees ... or, are you saying firm's should specialize their services, thereby commanding higher fees, thereby enabling higher wages ?
where's the "chicken" and the "egg" here ?
Both, I think.
As far as specialization, I think it depends on the size of the firm. I think it directly relates to the individual, too. I do not think everyone coming out of grad school will/can be a good designer, master the codes and cds, be a savvy business/client guy, etc.
No other profession that I can think of expects or requires this.
trace:
is the problem then that:
1. architect is poorly defined, but is such a diverse profession requiring a broad skill set, as compared to law/medicine/accounting in which teh target is more focused? talent in architecture is a moving target?
is this is the issue, does talent require a "team of all trades" vs. other professions which can be a one man show? it seems as though the issue is that the architect is often given a challenge of bringing specialties "up front" with specilists brought in as consultants, whereas a doctor for example has a more definitive and established avenue for referral to ever more specialized doctors (GP-->pediatrist-->x-ray tecchnician-->surgeon-->etc.)... Is the problem that general people don't deal with architects enough to understand the need for specialists?
2. As far as service goes, that there is such a range in quality and also diversity in the result (design) that clients are much more critical of whether the architect got the job done than say a doctor or a lwayer or accountant?
In other words, since every architect is going to produce something different, differences easily understandable to clients, it's more difficult for the architect, client satisfaction is a moving target too... In other words, with a doctor or lawyer, the average patient or client expects satisfactory results, and is therefore less discriminating in which doctor or lawye to go to. Whereas with an architect, they expect WHAT THEY WANT, which is much more difficult to hit... So the average client is more discriminating in which architect they choose, and it also means that the market is much more competitive, meaning that fees get you a range of service, we the providers get compete on fee, and here is no "going rate" for standard service...
There is a book called "the architecture of happiness" by Alain De Botton
It is a good read, and addresses all of these points from a philosophical/psychological point of view. i reccommend it to all.
An interesting discussion.
To open up the question again, and in response to bRink, a doctor or lawyer does have to get buy off. A doctor can prescribe cyanide for my headache, but I don't have to take it. My lawyer can want to plead guilty, but I can fire her for doing so. If my accountant f*'s up my tax return, I can make him pay for it.
The only difference between architects and the other official professions is that we don't lobby the government on the basis of 'science.' Instead we relay on watered down science, i.e. engineering, which our best practitioners ignore in school and all our practitioners promptly forget when we graduate.
So if we were really interested in changing the nature of our professional cohones, we would make up architectural science. Then we could spout Gehry's first fish hypothesis at helpless undergrads, and Eseinmanns cynical law of profit at cocktail parties with our drunken friends.
Or some other junk. The point is that what passes for science in the professions is really revealed every two months when the New England Journal of Medicine publishes another article on how prayer does or does not improve your chances of recovery.
So, to the suggestion that our real purpose is to seek out Jesus -- If you have much of an interest in Jesus, you pay your minister to seek out Jesus for you. If he or she doesn't find (it? – which gender applies to a politically correct Jesus for hire?) should you sue?
mespellrong:
true... i guess the doctor, lawyer and accountant do need to get buyoff... but i think there is a difference... maybe it's that, with those other professions, one "treatment" is taken in a bite sized morsel... That is, a doctor visit, a surgery, a tax return, a legal consultation (perhaps less so with a lengthy legal battle), all are manageable bites... You finish one, you are happy or unhappy, and you keeping going back for more, or you fire them, look for a new lawyer or doctor or accountant... These professions work for repeat clients, regularly... An architect does too, but each time its like major surgery.
with the architect, the contract is not bite sized... for many clients, itsa significant investment, and can run months and years... and the buyoff is not about future return visits or consultations, its for the curent "treatment"... it's almost like a doctor trying to get buyoff on the diagnosis, the execution of each part of the surgery (while the patient is lying open-chested on the operating table... or at least, the doctor has to get buyoff on the procedure every step of the way before hand with a 3D virtual model of the patient's organs...), the color of the sutures, and the medication after treatment...
The point is, whether the doctor or lawyer of accountant was successful is more black and white, or at least within 5 shades of gray... By contrast, in architecture, success it would seem is more like 50 shades of gray, spead over a length of tijme, producing a complex gray scale charcoal drawing... some parts black, some white, some gray, some off white, but the whole composition actually looks like something and has to function or mean something as well... Is the drawing a success or a failure? Who could say for sure? More importantly, does the client like it? Can we make it a little more black or white with photoshop? (basically the client is looking over your shoulder as you draw)
typos... anyway maybe its all generalization
the architect offers a physical product, not just a service...
none of these other professions (dotcor, lawyer, accountant) do this... unless you consider your accounting reports a product... or maybe a cosmetic surgeon...
is selling a product/service hybrid very different in nature from selling a pure service? is the difficulty we are facing that we have a more complex marketing job, having to sell a product and a service?
yet we don't provide the physical product... the builders do.
true...
but thats like saying the assembly plant provides me with my honda civic hybrid, not the designers, engineers, salespeople, business managers... the builder is part of it, but they aren't the ones doing the designing, selling, or managing the client's money, and presenting the product to the client...
its the architect that sells and markets the thing.
i mean in terms of the client
another thing about lawyers, dr.s, accountants is that we are all sold on the idea of them knowing what is right. That's changing, at least in medicine (thank God!).
The American Medical Association (AMA) is one of the most powerful organizations in the country. They dictate what is 'science' and what isn't, mostly based off of large drug companies deep pockets. It's a cyclical nightmare, imho, where the drug companies push for a drug to be sold, then the dr's prescribe them with little thought and we just gobble them up.
But now people are starting to ask 'so why do I have migraines (that's me)? How do I get rid of them without taking these pills that eat my throat and stomach raw (no one warned me about the side effects, of course)?'
To sum it up, I think that we assume too much and people are beginning to expect their dr's to work with them for a solution, not a scribbled prescription. It's a long way off, as most American's are so incredibly lazy that they certainly won't start thinking for themselves overnight, but it's happening.
Architect's need to sell their skills - what they are good at. I think there are far too many architects with little specialized skills and with little design talent. There is no differentiation between people and that's a big problem. Everything is marginalized in the real world.
I still can't see how architects can survive without some way of saying one firm is better than another. There are other designers in other professions that (good ones) that charge several times what the ones with lesser skills do and that's a good thing, it keeps things competitive in a professional environment (not just random arch competitions).
Don't get too caught up in comparing arch to other professions - it is fairly unique. The questions should be how not why.
but trace,
we ALL think we have talent, we ALL think we know what is right, and EVERY firm thinks they are better than the other firms....
I suppose some firms have resigned themselves to make tons of money repeating similar designs for infill buildings over and over again, but there is a necessity for that type of firm too...
there's absolutely necessity for those buildings. the built environment shouldn't be relegated to second-rate architecture just because no one wants to put forth the effort. that's like a doctor that euthanizes all his cancer patients.
this isn't to say that architecture needs to be avant-garde or ground breaking, but should at the very least be thought out, elegant, and considerate.
and i also disagree that every firm thinks they are better than others. i think a good firm would have a healthy respect or even admiration for other firms' work. you don't need great buildings. just nice ones.
lots of the problems arise from the public's lack of education of what architecture really is or can do for them. education and leading by example is paramount.
bad lawyers lose cases. bad doctors don't heal/help patients. bad architects? they still get buildings built. this is the problem we should be addressing.
so, beyond the obvious pieces of this question that can be handled by building codes and building officials, how do you suppose we get rid of these "bad architects" ?
how do you make -- and enforce -- a distinction between "good" and "bad" architecture ... the people who frequent this forum can't begin to agree on that question, and we're supposedly better informed on this issue than most.
i seem to remember that a certain adolf tried to dictate architectural taste 60 or so years back ... how'd that work out for him ?
of course everyone thinks they have talent, that's part of the problem. I think you'll find that in every profession, but at least in others people recognize others skills/talents and can acknowledge that someone is better than they are.
Also, as CAfA points out, I agree that the better designers will have much respect for other good designers.
The problem is probably due to the schooling we go through, where you have to develop an ego about your work to handle the crits. In other creative professions, it's just not nearly as difficult or stressful, not to mention most other creative professionals make more starting with significantly less stress and hours.
Personally, I have left a few dr's because they were lazy - they did not know about certain drugs, side effects, alternative treatments, new studies, etc., that anyone can find online in about 10 seconds. That's changing, though, as more and more are learning and willing to work with thier patients instead of declaring themselves right about everything.
Education is the key, for sure, but I also think that the public, in general, expects some differences besides the business cards of an architecture firm. It's not 'hire and architect, they'll make a great building you'll love', because I honestly don't believe that's the case.
Most buildings are ugly, and that's simply because those that are designing them don't have talent, don't have vision, or just don't care. Anyway you look at it, that sucks.
I'll always hold onto a quote from a NBBJ partner from years back "we always try to hire people that are better [more talented] than we are".
i think the focus here has been far too much on "science?" on what science do architects base their work? the only real sciences--structural engineering and environmental engineering to name a few of the few--are better handled by specialists who may happen to be architects, but who usually are not. i think the role of architects is better understood when architects are seen more as a sort of philosophers, sociologists, and of course planners than as engineers or scientists. our job in short is to create a work that can be inhabited and be a part of the greater built and natural world--hopefully it would be respectful, elegant and socially responsible, in my opinion. we are responsible for planning, creating and inovating, which is why anytime the designer, inventory or especially visionary of any project or thing is cited they are often called "the architect of" whatever. i think we, our clients, and the public would be better off if we saw architects on the whole in this way--as visionaries, not machinist, predictable scientists.
as a side and to rebut eb, i also think we'd be a lot better off with a little less jesus in america--at least the jesus of the radical religious right.
stone-
we're often thinking about architecture in terms of aesthetic good and bad. but often, i find that some buildings simply don't perform well.
a lot of "bad" architecture comes from designers who really don't take into consideration certain factors when designing. it's easy to design a building when you don't care about say, environmental considerations, or creating useful, pleasant spaces for the users.
aesthetic style is something that will always be debated. but it's easy to evaluate when a building just... works.
but a box works more often than not, right? Boxes are typically boring, but easy to get right.
I am with FLM - architects should be thought of as creative problem solvers, not science or math folk (can't tell you how many times I hear the 'what, you don't do the math for that sky scraper?').
I dunno...building's got to work, of course, but that should be the easy part. The experiential part, often directly related to the aesthetics (hopefully), is the part that is lacking and the part that is difficult.
what is difficult is getting both right in the same building.
it is very easy to be creative. it is very easy to do math. but to do both and have sincere justification is difficult.
methinks my main intent for this thread has been distorted as the discussion has progressed.
the word-police notwithstanding, i am not suggesting that law, medicine, accounting and architecture are directly comparable professions - clearly, they are not.
i am suggesting that architects do not - in general - put their clients first. we frequently seem to have an agenda for our building that is not necessarily in tune with our client's objectives. in this regard, we are very different from those other professions.
i contend that this trait does our profession much more harm than good
p.s. -- in many ways, my intent for this thread is nearly the same as that being discussed under Egomaniacal architect vs. helpless client
I agree with old fogies point that architecture does seem to lack the same immediacy of *need* that those other professions seem to have... That, and the fact that there is less clarity in the value of our expertise probably do account for the difference in how clients perceive as the value of our services... Is the reason that we get paid less, because the nature of our market different: we don't have a monopoly in or expertise, these other professions don't face outside competition, there are few substitutes for a doctor, a lawyer, or an accountant...
Most companies in expert services--such as lawyers, doctors, and accountants--think that their clients are buying expertise. But most prospects for these complex services cannot evaluate expertise; they cannot tell a really good tax return, a clever motion, or a perceptive diagnosis, But they can tell if the relationship is good and if phone calls are returned. Clients are experts at knowing if they feel valued.babs, funny thing but I found this marketing book at the barnes and noble today, sortof relevant to your comments:
'selling the invisible' by harry beckworth:
In most professional services, you are not selling expertise--because your expertise is assumed, and because your prospect cannot intelligently evaluate your expertise anyway. Instead, you are selling a relationship . And in most cases, that is where you need the most work.
If you're selling a service, you're selling a relationship.Maybe the value of expertise is not really that important, and it's really about selling client relationships? (the expertise simply the bottom line, a minimum ground upon which we are selling a relationship?)
sorry, typos, my post made no sense... i'll post again later when i'm more coherent...
anyway, that's an interesting book on marking for our present day "service economy" that's sortof relevant to this discussion... it has some architecture references...
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.