i'm helping a friend's brother by doing some space planning and getting the necessary permit for his remodel but he has the mentality that bigger is better regardlesss of whether the space works or not...he just wants that shit big...he doesn't give a shit whether his brother walks directly into the living room from the bedroom...and homie has to walk across the living room through the family room to use the sole bathroom in the house, among other things...fuck it...i was actually telling him that that shit is mickey mouse style...that foo don't wanna listen so i'm just gonna draw it up like he wants it and then laugh at the dumb ass spaces inspired by the concept of "bigger is better"...
: your comments add value to this thread ... the relationship between client and architect is fundamental to a successful project ... so often, it seems we are more concerned with the building and less concerned with the relationship ... i think this is what babs is driving at by creating this thread
buying legal or medical or architectural services is, in many ways, a "blind purchase" - meaning the buyer typically hasn't much experience or knowledge on which to evaluate the quality of the service provider or the service being provided ... often, with a blind purchase, even after receiving the service the buyer doesn't know whether he/she received high quality ... for that reason, price often becomes a surrogate for quality ... if the price is high, it must be good work.
i think one of the main distinctions between architectural services and medical or legal services is the relationship between the consumer and the post-service result -- everybody lives in a house of some sort and most people who work do so in a building of some sort. most of us don't have the same intimate daily relationship with the results of legal or medical services.
for those reasons, everybody has a lot of direct personal experience with buildings, whether they're architects or not. this tends to provide everybody some background on which to form opinions about whether a building is good or not good .... those opinions usually have a different origin than those held by architects.
consequently, if was wish to change or mold the attitudes and opinions of our clients, we must do so one person at a time ... that means we must be willing to engage in an vibrant, interactive relationship with that client.
indeed. no project will be successful without a good relationship with your client. it takes a good client to have a good project. i never take my clients for granted. i interview them just as intensely as they interview me because i want to make sure that they are a good fit for me just as they want to make sure i am a good fit for them. i am often amazing at the bad-mouthing of clients on this site. remember, they are the reason you have a job.
So what are some new relationships or services that architects can offer?
Branding, marketing, real estate, life-cycle cost/operations analysis, product design, 3-d animation...
Who are the firms that have branched out into offering services beyond the typical scope? Rios Clementi Hale makes home furnishings and decorative objects
Someone touched on this earlier but its so true - law and medicine are in the pursuit of truths, which people value. Architecture as art is arbitrary. Can you prove your design will meet your client's goals, be they monetary value, status, etc? You will have more merit if your established for sure and can point to examples, but I think think the real devaluation came when we lost the engineering part of our profesion. People looked to the architects as mechanical people who could be trusted to find the best solution. Not as much anymore, as could be measured in the 20% adjusted value decline in our fees ( based on multiple hearsay) since the 1960's.
The world is more complex, more materials and methods, so maybe it was inevitable. Then there is specialization, similar to medicine. So I guess my point is that we need to refocus our education system, or junk it altogether, in favor of a engineering based, business minded model. Design will not suffer. Look at the great state of design under the current 25 year model focusing on arbitrary design. We will be more marketable, relevant and in touch with the world.
Treekiller - I think new services is NOT the answer. It should be the old services of which we were regarded as masters that we should re-learn. Such as cost projecting, engineering ( bring them into our practices as integrated business, insurance be damed!) and design. Maybe we should lobby the insurance people through the AIA to make this less risky financially.
A first response to this question stated that Medicine and Law is outside the realm of art. Although this is true, I know their are doctors who believe their practice should be about innovation instead of always conforming to the status quo.
My faher in law is a doctor. He got particularly interested in urology because he saw an area of medicine where he could potentially make a big difference in people's lives. For this reason, he started developing new and better procedures with video camera operations and video scoping techniques that resulted in fixing problems some people had that had never been really fixed before. He and his partner pioneered the way for this type of surgery. Now he goes around the country and lectures at different medical school about it. During the time he staretd all this, he was criticized my older doctors in his practice who claimed what he was trying to do was crazy and would never work.
So, I guess that was a long example about something I blieve is still applicable. I firmly believe that we, as professionals or soon to be professionals, are able to change and influence architecture in whatever situation we are in. Obviously, my father in law had tremendous constraints to work in while developing his new ideas because of medicine regulations,etc... and in the same way, I believe we can still be innovative and can work to always "make architecture" in very innovative and (for lack of a better work) great ways.
The big differences, mentioned somewhere above, is that medicine and law give you tangible results. Architecture doesn't.
Using that example, I would still say architecture needs to focus. Your father in law chose to specialize to make a difference. He didn't try to cure everything, but worked towards an extremely focused problem and came up with a solution.
: "medicine and law give you tangible results. Architecture doesn't"
interesting observation .. seems to me "recovery" or "death" are reasonably tangible results in medicine .. as is "acquittal" or "conviction" in the law .. the buildings completed by my firm seem reasonably tangible to me as well.
i think your point may be that it's easy to identify success in both law and medicine .. less so in architecture, provided the building doesn't fall and the rain stays outside, both of which represent minimum capabilities in our profession.
my view on this whole set of issues is that, nothwithstanding the legal requirement to use an architect for buildings above a certain size, "architecture" is a discretionary service ... nobody "has" to build a building, whereas one does have to treat a medical condition, one does have to answer a subpoena and one does have to file a tax return. usually, building a building is something one does to pursue an opportunity, more so than fulfill an obligation
: "If we got over all the hyper-intellectual grousing and actually learned how put a project together without any mistakes within the fee and budget we quoted the client. If we did that, we'd all be damn surprised at how much more respect would flow our way."
In my humble view, this is the most important comment in this whole thread. Most clients are not going to willingly spend the extra fees required to produce "architecture" until the fees they already spend consistently provide buildings that meet their functional, budgetary and schedule requirements.
Perhaps our profession should adopt the same attitude the permeats medicine ... "first, do no harm"
I think it is valuable to distinguish between really two different sides to client expectations related to two different roles that the architect plays. The architect is really two things as a professional: 1. a craftsperson, and 2. a designer. Both of these are critical, both are what we get paid for, what the client expects of us. This is not to say that we need to be excellent at both, or either of them, but we need to understand that both of these roles are essentially what we are paid to do, and are thus the source of our value to the client...
1. craftsperson: exectution of our trade, including creating documents, communicating effectively, budgeting, knowledge of how to build something, technology, knowledge of materials, costs, detailing, managing projects. Expertise here is real, performance here is measurable, qualifiable, and has real value. This aspect of what we do is the essential foundation (although it can be much more, it can be a source of excellence), but without this, our profession loses its core value and becomes trivial. A certain level of performance in this is assumed, and here standard performance defines the standard by which we are respected as a profession.
2. designer: that aspect (at any scale) which is subjective, aesthetic, artistic?, creative... opinionated, critical, innovative, multidisciplinary, culturally specific, rational or irrational. This is the *ideas profession* aspect of what we do that, while lacking in easily identifiable "use value" to the client, is in my opinion paramount to what an architect does, both in terms of client expectations, and what our individual market value... It is the point of differentiation, arguably subjective, maybe even fashionable, but it is an aspect of what we do that makes the nature of our profession different from an accountant, a doctor, or a lawyer.
Both of these are what we do, whether as a sole practitioner, or collectively in a large team. Being good at what we do is important, how we perform in both aspects of our profession positions us in the market, in the eyes of our clients. It actually influences who are clients are...
However, I think it is a mistake to think that being good at what we do is fundamentally what wins us clients, keeps us employed, and determines our value in the market... The problem is, like it or not, architecture is fundamentally a business, and our clients are people, who are essentially making a subjective purchase. At times, "superior craft and design" are secondary, beyond a certain level of "good enough"... Often most clients are not well versed enough in what we do to assess our relative value based on the quality of our work (they can't tell a superior architect from a good one)...
Instead they are paying us for two things: 1. our professional relationship, and 2. our design (whether they like it or not). In the end it is about whether we can communicate, and more importantly relate with them, whether there is good chemistry, both how professional and how personable we are... These are what in their minds separates one architect from the other, impacts client satisfaction more than anything else... Our clients don't generally know a great set of documents from a poor set, a good spec from a bad spec, those aspects that are qualifiable by people within our profession, And perhaps make our actual work valuable within our profession... Instead they will measure us on perceived efficiency, whether we staying within the budget, but also how well we receive their opinions and input...
I think this is hard, not just for architects, but for most professionals... The real work takes alot of time and energy, there is a desire for excellence, and a *need* for focus... But the reality of survival in broader market in which there are plenty of substitutes for an architect means that we need to sell, whether it is acquiring new work, or building on our client relationships during work (since in a service industry, every service provider is the front line)... There are all kinds of negative connotations with sell, and often professions have a hard time focusing on the work and on selling the work at the same time... I'm not sure what the solution is, maybe it's about dividing the labor: those architects who find the work, and those who do the work (like in a larger firm)... Or maybe it's more difficult: requiring a shift in professional culture to be more client focused, being personable as well as professional... Ultimately we will get more respect only if we provide good service, which means relating to our clients.
The hard part is, I don't think *selling* is the third part of what we do... It is integral to what we do.
: "maybe it's more difficult: requiring a shift in professional culture to be more client focused, being personable as well as professional... Ultimately we will get more respect only if we provide good service, which means relating to our clients.
my view is that offering competence and reliable service are not things to base our profession on. merely being competent is not remotely enough. it is in fact only what all of us should be expected to provide as a minimum.
In any case i have yet to work for a firm that can't deal with money and deadlines in a professional manner. ie, delivering on time and on budget (barring unforseen problems), and without acrimony. so am not so certain that is the real issue at all.
I have seen however, far too many times, the principals agree to too many services for too little fees, and while i understand why they did it, am still convinced it was a mistake...the kind of mistake that leads to bakruptcy really. and that is plain dumb. i think we don' get respect because we don't ask for it and we don't care about it. what we care about is making things; and we are willing, on the whole, to give up a lot to do that. it is our choice, and the consequences are apparently acceptable or we wouldn't be in the situation we are now.
my motivation is to make great architecture. since i don't have much money that means i gots to play the cheap whore to the best clients i can find...the trick is to make them believe i am a hi-class whore so i can turn some really nice tricks, and maybe earn a fairly decent living. if my goal were to make real money or earn respect from my clients i would be in a different business. so i am, in some ways, stuck.
in other ways though i believe that this situation offers opportunities. what it all comes down to is salesmanship, and in our materialist culture that kind of thing is quite open to manipulation. look at what all the starchitects have been doing since before corbusier; even mies, the great builder, was made famous by his unbuilt projects, skillfull collages published in magazines, before he ever built his ideas into reality. I think surgeons and lawyers and other professionals don't really have access to that sort of path to fame and opportunity.
so maybe we are lucky.
but it is almost 2 am and things seem to make far more sense in the middle of the night after a glass or two of wine, than in the glare of daylight...but i am hopeful.
"If we got over all the hyper-intellectual grousing and actually learned how put a project together without any mistakes within the fee and budget we quoted the client. If we did that, we'd all be damn surprised at how much more respect would flow our way."
if we put a project together without any mistakes, that probably means that we're looking to the construction industry for innovation rather than looking for innovation (and thus some mistakes) from within our own profession. imo, our willingness to be on a constant learning curve is part of the value of our profession.
i don't believe that we'd command more respect. loss of our willingness to pursue innovation, critical thinking/questioning, trial-and-error, exploration with materials and ideas, etc would only further erode the scope and number of concerns for which architects are still respected.
It seems that there may be two opposite but related problems: 1) good architects not respected, and 2) bad architects routinely hired. Now, one trouble with using the words "good" and "bad" is that they are relative--i.e., there will always be bad architects because there will always be a range of skills among architects.
But it didn't used to be that way--"architecture" was seen simply as "really good building." If you didn't want "architecture," you could hire a good builder with no pretense of art, just solid building (an art in itself, but different). Where all that changed was when some folks decided that the state government should license architects. Now, because someone has a license from the state, what they do is called "architecture." I believe this is part of the reason that laypersons aren't all that knowledgeable about architecture: we confused them. And "we" did so on purpose, because the folks clamoring for licensing laws weren't generally the already-respected architects, but rather the middling hacks seeking legitimacy (exaggeration here is for effect).
So, here we are today, with 100,000 "architects" in the U.S. and very little stuff that we would call "architecture." While informing the public about architects, licensing laws have simultaneously confused them about architecture and minimized the pressures of competition that drive innovation in the other non-professions.
: "the folks clamoring for licensing laws weren't generally the already-respected architects, but rather the middling hacks seeking legitimacy ... maybe I'm just naive, but what's the source of this assertion, please ?
i feel as if I'm the person, as designer, who's (will be, mostly) fighting for the practical durable design choices, vs silly (tired) trendy brainwashed client junk propaganda in newspaper articles etc.
is architecture both an art and an instrument that sells? if it doesn't sell, will it get built? (architecture is expensive)
or... should a good design sell itself? to be efficient, should design tools always be sales tools (pushed far as sellable media)? to sell both to the client, and to stakeholders?
is the problem that there a disconnect between architect and work and client?
Thank you for enquiry. The Department of Standardization is pleased to inform the world at large, standardly, of standards selectively codified for your noble obedience in principled, trustworthy, and collective action by self will. The virtues of standard obedience set forth by the self selected standards of and by this department adhere to the righteous principles that have been the guiding light standard bequeathed to us by our illustrious fore standard bearers.
By will of self selection, the role of the Standardized Architecturalized Standardizer as standardized by the Department of Standardization is and always has been to standardize Architecture exemplarily by the right given us by our fore standard bearers to standardize the world in order to project a compliant structure that all will be standardized in a righteous and more selectively standardized style. Noncompliance is not be negotiable, this by self selected will.
By the light of the Standard, we self selectively face a prosperous future of total standardization in our world at large, in standardized health, strength, beauty, success, and fame. We at the department are self righteously pleased with our standard selves with these recent codifications and ask every standard one to celebrate with us by submitting your self ordained high chair qualifications to your area AIA president for premiere joint committee leadership. World standardization is gloriously near because of our standardized leadership, self selected vision, and standard mental thinking. Our struggles to standardize the non-compliant are bearing great fruit. A vast new generation Architecturalized Standardizers is now being born that will, by the Power of the Standard, standardize every facet of human life to and by our standard design. It is indeed a glorious time to be alive, hail, this by the Light of Standard!!!!
Again, by the will of our selective standardized, righteous, mental thinking, the Department of Architecturalized Standardization here proclaims by code the Architecturalized Standardizer authorizes by selectively standardized, pure, architecturalized standards exemplified by this department’s historical right of willfull leadership in authorized high chair joint committees on the prescribed norm of the Standard and free from the distortion and corruption of non-compliance.
In our day and age, these guys would seem to be a bit cultish:INTBAU Is architecture just a bunch of different cults, everyone pushing their own morality on each other?
But then, maybe it's because rationality and commerce is the new religion of the age... It's funny, but I actually find these types to be pretty radical... And maybe there is a point there too... The question is whether modernism is really ethical... Sure it's efficient, it's "progressive"... but does it endure? To be environmentally and culturally sustainable? Is the rate at which we build essentially destroying our environment? Should we be building less, and building to last? Is there is more to architecture than what drives the business / profession / economy... Should architects have another "REAL purpose"?
the issue i have with "sustainability" is that it is simply not in our nature to be so. there is no possibility that humans can exist truely sustainably. we are just prolonging the inevitability.
if you look at native american and african cultures before european influence, it seems that they handled sustainability just fine. but then they didn't feel it was necessary to 'own' things, either.
is our western/european influenced nature necessarily the same as human nature?
Anything's possible. We could have a quantum leap in consciousness - it seems like 1/4-1/3 of the world is ready once there is an obvious direction. But with groups like the religious right and Bush in power, we could very well just end up killing everyone/everything and all going to hell (so to speak).
I'll remain optimistic that we will be taking two steps forward, one back, for the upcoming years.
oh, mh, I don't buy your argument 'cause there is so much evidence that we can 'adapt', both physically and psychologically. We don't 'need' to destroy. There are simply too many people that are lazy, imho. Kill television and we'll get rid of half the problem.
i think you need to understand what "truely sustainable" is before you say we can all do it. truely sustainable basically means living in a primal state, like animals.
This isn't a negative statement, just something to understand in looking forward.
i think sustainable civilization is possible... its about thinking outside the box, it can be as small as one thing, a technology or energy that revolutionizes thinking and culture...
it could almost be like the "cold fusion" false alarm that happened in the 80's... if water molecules became the ultimate limitless cheap, and ecologically saafe energy source... that revolution has largely been discredited as being a mistake or even a hoax, but if it had been real, it would have revolutionized global economic power and solved many of the energy and environmental problems that cause so much strife and tragedy in our world today.
more likely, it will be numerous lesser technological revolutions that will produce change... of course, the greatest barrier to innovation and sustainability is not technology, it's political opposition... power that has money invested in the way things are now... there are plenty of large entrenched players that would have so much to lose from change, these players need to be forced out of complacency... tragically, it may take catastrophic falls before the world wakes up...
but i think where architecture plays the greatest role here is not in developing these new technologies, but in creating a market for them... creating applications for them, and making them profitable and mainstream within our culture, giving these technologies a competitive edge and creative energy to feed the enormous money that is getting pumped into this research and development...
on the bright side, "green funds" and companies researching green solutions are the hot item... sustainable is doing well in the stock markets, reflecting current expectations of future performance.
on a side note, maybe its just a dream, and maybe i'm just too much of a conspiracy theorist, but... sometimes i wonder if cold fusion was real... it wouldn't surprise me all that much if such a technology exists which would eventually basically make next to free unlimited and environmentally efficient energy...
there are just too many people who would lose too much from this to allow it to happen for the general good...oil companies, entire economies that depend on energy for survival, and governments who have invested too much in resources, stocks that depend on energy sources for their revenue, fear of change, powers that want to maintain the status quo, fear of competition from developming countries...
nope, ain't paranoia, I don't think. Money makes the world go round, take it out and we have chaos.
I agree it will be smaller leaps forward. Things that can start small with little impact, but grow over time (and no doubt be bought by oil companies).
The common art in all fields is to convince the client/ patient that they were instrumental in solving the problem, that they matter in the equation, and a little bit of convincing that you are suggesting something that is a good fit for the specific situation. architects want to use client money to design their poetic dreams and don't want the client to get in the way. It is a practical art in that you have to find a solution within the limitations and constraints of the project. That could be zoning laws, money, or clients with bad taste.
In medicine the patient pays a huge role especially in diagnosis where they are the person who knows the manifestations of the symptoms better than anyone because they have to live with them. The idea that a patient comes to a doctor to get a problem fixed is called tertiary medicine. This is not the ideal way to "practice" medicine. Primary medicine prevents problems from happening by education and lifestyle changes. This involves patients to a much greater degree. The issue of compliance arises. Will the patient do what is the best for them? if not what can we prescribe that is good enough that they WILL do? Because it makes no sense to have the best exercise prescription or diet all written out and have the client not do it. I have changed from the term patient to client now because i believe it reflects the teamwork that has to be there in order for the objective to be reached, namely a healthy body or at least a healthier body and disease prevention.
Maybe its the same with architecture.
There needs to be a trust between the client and architect to dicipher the issues and clues surrounding the project. The expertise of the architect does not make them more important than the client. If architects get to exercise the artistic role at all it is as a commissioned artist. They can always quit the job if they don't agree with the clients opinions but they wont get paid. The other thing is average people have a more educated eye than in the past. It may not be a formal education but we are all bombarded by design on every front. Some architects beleive they knwo what would look best for their company logo or web site design- why? because they are architects? I guess the original point was that architects are not God's gift to anyone so they shouldn't be snobs about the whole thing. so many years of school and a few years of practice does it make you better than the janitor or more important? The other side of the coin is let us do what you are paying us for. Alot of architects have technical skills but no asthetic sense. There are architects who can pick and choose what they do but how do you get there? Some people say you should only take jobs where you get complete freedom given by the client. but that might mean buying lots of ramen. People like Ando have to piss other architects off. If you don't have that luxury the art is how can you get satisfaction from your work and please the client?
yep, its all money that makes the world move... so accoring to the conspiracy theory, environmentally friendly and abundant energy technology exists already, but it's subject to the "IPOD" effect... Apple might have newer and better technologies and designs for the IPOD already in the works and ready to be sold, but they have to release the newer versions slowly, gradually, maybe once a year in order to draw their profit out slowly, milk each new technology for all the money its worth before making it obsolete... Otherwise, if they came out with the IPOD nano right away, they skip over the IPOD mini, IPOD shuffle, etc. without any profit from them...
Energy interests need to milk oil for what its worth before allowing any reall technological progre$$...
i don't know that that's really a conspiracy theory so much as just our corporate-centered brand of capitalism right now. oil interests are incredibly strong in american politics, so it's not difficult to see one big reason why we don't invest in renewable energy sources or stricter environmental standards. neoconservatives in america have convinced the majority of americans that it is american to place corporate interests and freedoms over environmental security and individual and communal human well-being. they're biased films, but "the corporation" and "the end of suburbia" really explain this preference for corporations quite well. check out this article for how property rights (as one example of this) have changed from being people-centric to corporate-centric in america.
i think where it becomes a conspiracy theory is if there is actually a plan... intelligent elements which seek to control the flow of technology... i think its not so much that we don't invest in renewable energy sources, its that investment is actually made to see that we don't...
of course there is a plan!! These guys are playing with billions, probably trillions! They are smart, savvy, and seasoned business men - to think that things just are happening by coincidence would be a little naive, I think.
It's just business. It's ugly and it sucks, but it's just business. They manipulate markets and plan for future growth - like 'where can we get more $$ out of America? Hey, I know, we'll pay off politicians, keep CAFE really low and introduce encourage the purchase of gas guzzlers'. Not a conspiracy, as it is pretty transparent, just ugly greed and business.
One of the first things Reagan did when he entered the White House was remove Carter's solar panels on the roof. That pretty much says it all.
Maybe the panels were old and not working correctly. who knows.
I dont beleive we have a real option yet for a new energy source..
i was dissappointed to here about ethanol needing too much coal to produce any significant energy to be a viable option.
solar and wind are relatively useless as energy sources- with our great consumption
and that is where i believ the problem lies with the individual- each person is guzzling 24 barrells of oil a year!
300 million people consume more than the Chinese at 1.2 billion.
that says it all
I believe we have big corporations to sustain the economy- so lower production cost etc. Its really the individual that is creating the corporations. Start a small business if you don't like big business.
The US has amazing opportunities and money available to encourage small business. Look at google becoming a large corporation- they started as a small business- microsoft also. I dont beleive there is a conspiracy theory. People want more money and companies grow and get bigger. Just wait as Apple grows- people love it now but once it gets big people will hate the "man".
We also dont want the government to pry in our daily lives and we dont want to pay taxes which means no social healthcare . This is one of the reasons why we cant compete in a global market as small bussinesses.
if we consume less the demand will be less and therefore the dependancy will be less.
I beleive the US is going through another "age" change. We are reinventing ourselves and that means growing pains. We went from industrial to information relatively quickly but the industries have been slow to adapt mainly i believe because it involves people. People are payed too much in the automobile industry. Think of the problems with GM and Delco. Its like the Postal service - people get $30 an hour to put a rubber sealon a door for example. Now lets say I am GM i am loosing money as far as auto sales to foreighn corps. I pay my unskilled workers too much, i pay rediculous amount of $$$ for healthcare, I have all my equipment geared toward the internal cumbustion engine, the transportation infrastructure is depandant on basically gas stations. Think of the money it would cost to completely transform the old system to a new one- new point of purchase equipment, new production equipment, new training and education for workers, etc etc.
Its a HUGE leap and not that simple as people make it sound.
first solution- take public transport- force the govt to create better public transport and provide incentives for private big business to invest in public transport- I live in Japan and it works ( one problem- the US is a huge area so the infrastructure would be a huge expense)
second step all buses and govt vehicles should move to alternative energy sources in order to help the environment blah blah blah- and increase public trust and confidence in these new alternatives- becaue that is one of the biggest obstacles is public perception. In other words we have to change 300 million peoples minds and more importantly their behavior- and for a group of people who are religiously protective of "personal rights" and unwilling to give up freedoms for the good of the community. Then there is also the love and romance of the automobile. When Bush recently was in Russia Puten nostalgically showed Bush his 1st car.
who are "these guys" and who are the neo conservatives? It sounds alot like propaganda and name calling, and a little vague. everyone can vote and even more important refuse to work for a large corporation if they think that will help- but the biggest thing you can do is stop consuming so much.
I am wondering how this thraed has gotton so far off topic. can someone help pullit back?
hd - why can't solar and wind be viable alternatives? We can thank the Republican's for killing 20+ years that could have been used to research. If the time was spent on it, I am confident it would succeed. Not to replace individual transportation needs, but many other things.
There is no conspiracy, as I mentioned, the manipulation big oil has done, via politics, money and raw power, is obvious and transparent. They kill competition and exploit what they need to to keep raking in the buck.
babs - do you really think law and medicine are client driven? I don't. I think they are monetarily driven. Most docs and lawyers I know, went into the fields for the money, not to serve clients.
I see nothing wrong with having a personal agenda. Actually, I think selfish/personal agenda's in architecture are extremely healthy. If all we did was 'serve' our clients, then the profession would make even worse crap than it does now (I know, hard to imagine) - that's generally speaking.
The best architects in history were driven by a constant desire to do something new, something better. Good clients, ie ones with large pocket books and an interest in creating something exceptional, are the catalyst.
Any business needs to give the cients quality services or they won't succeed, but I think this is just general business (and common sense). I'd actually suggest we need more firms that maintian their integrity as designers and push their agenda further and further. Maybe then we'd get more innovation.
What's our REAL purpose ?
i'm helping a friend's brother by doing some space planning and getting the necessary permit for his remodel but he has the mentality that bigger is better regardlesss of whether the space works or not...he just wants that shit big...he doesn't give a shit whether his brother walks directly into the living room from the bedroom...and homie has to walk across the living room through the family room to use the sole bathroom in the house, among other things...fuck it...i was actually telling him that that shit is mickey mouse style...that foo don't wanna listen so i'm just gonna draw it up like he wants it and then laugh at the dumb ass spaces inspired by the concept of "bigger is better"...
..and when the things don't work as they shouldn't in your description, guess what, he is gonna say "stupid ass architect did it".
: your comments add value to this thread ... the relationship between client and architect is fundamental to a successful project ... so often, it seems we are more concerned with the building and less concerned with the relationship ... i think this is what babs is driving at by creating this thread
buying legal or medical or architectural services is, in many ways, a "blind purchase" - meaning the buyer typically hasn't much experience or knowledge on which to evaluate the quality of the service provider or the service being provided ... often, with a blind purchase, even after receiving the service the buyer doesn't know whether he/she received high quality ... for that reason, price often becomes a surrogate for quality ... if the price is high, it must be good work.
i think one of the main distinctions between architectural services and medical or legal services is the relationship between the consumer and the post-service result -- everybody lives in a house of some sort and most people who work do so in a building of some sort. most of us don't have the same intimate daily relationship with the results of legal or medical services.
for those reasons, everybody has a lot of direct personal experience with buildings, whether they're architects or not. this tends to provide everybody some background on which to form opinions about whether a building is good or not good .... those opinions usually have a different origin than those held by architects.
consequently, if was wish to change or mold the attitudes and opinions of our clients, we must do so one person at a time ... that means we must be willing to engage in an vibrant, interactive relationship with that client.
indeed. no project will be successful without a good relationship with your client. it takes a good client to have a good project. i never take my clients for granted. i interview them just as intensely as they interview me because i want to make sure that they are a good fit for me just as they want to make sure i am a good fit for them. i am often amazing at the bad-mouthing of clients on this site. remember, they are the reason you have a job.
So what are some new relationships or services that architects can offer?
Branding, marketing, real estate, life-cycle cost/operations analysis, product design, 3-d animation...
Who are the firms that have branched out into offering services beyond the typical scope?
Rios Clementi Hale makes home furnishings and decorative objects
Any others?
Someone touched on this earlier but its so true - law and medicine are in the pursuit of truths, which people value. Architecture as art is arbitrary. Can you prove your design will meet your client's goals, be they monetary value, status, etc? You will have more merit if your established for sure and can point to examples, but I think think the real devaluation came when we lost the engineering part of our profesion. People looked to the architects as mechanical people who could be trusted to find the best solution. Not as much anymore, as could be measured in the 20% adjusted value decline in our fees ( based on multiple hearsay) since the 1960's.
The world is more complex, more materials and methods, so maybe it was inevitable. Then there is specialization, similar to medicine. So I guess my point is that we need to refocus our education system, or junk it altogether, in favor of a engineering based, business minded model. Design will not suffer. Look at the great state of design under the current 25 year model focusing on arbitrary design. We will be more marketable, relevant and in touch with the world.
Treekiller - I think new services is NOT the answer. It should be the old services of which we were regarded as masters that we should re-learn. Such as cost projecting, engineering ( bring them into our practices as integrated business, insurance be damed!) and design. Maybe we should lobby the insurance people through the AIA to make this less risky financially.
Ok- what other old services should we offer?
Structural engineering is a good one, where do we draw the line- geotechnical? Acoustics?
or do we all join Arup?
project managment (some of us do this...)
i am a good whore. i just told some potential clients today to go fingerfuck themselves before it gets too far.
Re; "we know everything we want but need an architect to do the technical part".
amen.
A first response to this question stated that Medicine and Law is outside the realm of art. Although this is true, I know their are doctors who believe their practice should be about innovation instead of always conforming to the status quo.
My faher in law is a doctor. He got particularly interested in urology because he saw an area of medicine where he could potentially make a big difference in people's lives. For this reason, he started developing new and better procedures with video camera operations and video scoping techniques that resulted in fixing problems some people had that had never been really fixed before. He and his partner pioneered the way for this type of surgery. Now he goes around the country and lectures at different medical school about it. During the time he staretd all this, he was criticized my older doctors in his practice who claimed what he was trying to do was crazy and would never work.
So, I guess that was a long example about something I blieve is still applicable. I firmly believe that we, as professionals or soon to be professionals, are able to change and influence architecture in whatever situation we are in. Obviously, my father in law had tremendous constraints to work in while developing his new ideas because of medicine regulations,etc... and in the same way, I believe we can still be innovative and can work to always "make architecture" in very innovative and (for lack of a better work) great ways.
I'll be he's damn rich now!
The big differences, mentioned somewhere above, is that medicine and law give you tangible results. Architecture doesn't.
Using that example, I would still say architecture needs to focus. Your father in law chose to specialize to make a difference. He didn't try to cure everything, but worked towards an extremely focused problem and came up with a solution.
: "medicine and law give you tangible results. Architecture doesn't"
interesting observation .. seems to me "recovery" or "death" are reasonably tangible results in medicine .. as is "acquittal" or "conviction" in the law .. the buildings completed by my firm seem reasonably tangible to me as well.
i think your point may be that it's easy to identify success in both law and medicine .. less so in architecture, provided the building doesn't fall and the rain stays outside, both of which represent minimum capabilities in our profession.
my view on this whole set of issues is that, nothwithstanding the legal requirement to use an architect for buildings above a certain size, "architecture" is a discretionary service ... nobody "has" to build a building, whereas one does have to treat a medical condition, one does have to answer a subpoena and one does have to file a tax return. usually, building a building is something one does to pursue an opportunity, more so than fulfill an obligation
: "If we got over all the hyper-intellectual grousing and actually learned how put a project together without any mistakes within the fee and budget we quoted the client. If we did that, we'd all be damn surprised at how much more respect would flow our way."
In my humble view, this is the most important comment in this whole thread. Most clients are not going to willingly spend the extra fees required to produce "architecture" until the fees they already spend consistently provide buildings that meet their functional, budgetary and schedule requirements.
Perhaps our profession should adopt the same attitude the permeats medicine ... "first, do no harm"
I think it is valuable to distinguish between really two different sides to client expectations related to two different roles that the architect plays. The architect is really two things as a professional: 1. a craftsperson, and 2. a designer. Both of these are critical, both are what we get paid for, what the client expects of us. This is not to say that we need to be excellent at both, or either of them, but we need to understand that both of these roles are essentially what we are paid to do, and are thus the source of our value to the client...
1. craftsperson: exectution of our trade, including creating documents, communicating effectively, budgeting, knowledge of how to build something, technology, knowledge of materials, costs, detailing, managing projects. Expertise here is real, performance here is measurable, qualifiable, and has real value. This aspect of what we do is the essential foundation (although it can be much more, it can be a source of excellence), but without this, our profession loses its core value and becomes trivial. A certain level of performance in this is assumed, and here standard performance defines the standard by which we are respected as a profession.
2. designer: that aspect (at any scale) which is subjective, aesthetic, artistic?, creative... opinionated, critical, innovative, multidisciplinary, culturally specific, rational or irrational. This is the *ideas profession* aspect of what we do that, while lacking in easily identifiable "use value" to the client, is in my opinion paramount to what an architect does, both in terms of client expectations, and what our individual market value... It is the point of differentiation, arguably subjective, maybe even fashionable, but it is an aspect of what we do that makes the nature of our profession different from an accountant, a doctor, or a lawyer.
Both of these are what we do, whether as a sole practitioner, or collectively in a large team. Being good at what we do is important, how we perform in both aspects of our profession positions us in the market, in the eyes of our clients. It actually influences who are clients are...
However, I think it is a mistake to think that being good at what we do is fundamentally what wins us clients, keeps us employed, and determines our value in the market... The problem is, like it or not, architecture is fundamentally a business, and our clients are people, who are essentially making a subjective purchase. At times, "superior craft and design" are secondary, beyond a certain level of "good enough"... Often most clients are not well versed enough in what we do to assess our relative value based on the quality of our work (they can't tell a superior architect from a good one)...
Instead they are paying us for two things: 1. our professional relationship, and 2. our design (whether they like it or not). In the end it is about whether we can communicate, and more importantly relate with them, whether there is good chemistry, both how professional and how personable we are... These are what in their minds separates one architect from the other, impacts client satisfaction more than anything else... Our clients don't generally know a great set of documents from a poor set, a good spec from a bad spec, those aspects that are qualifiable by people within our profession, And perhaps make our actual work valuable within our profession... Instead they will measure us on perceived efficiency, whether we staying within the budget, but also how well we receive their opinions and input...
I think this is hard, not just for architects, but for most professionals... The real work takes alot of time and energy, there is a desire for excellence, and a *need* for focus... But the reality of survival in broader market in which there are plenty of substitutes for an architect means that we need to sell, whether it is acquiring new work, or building on our client relationships during work (since in a service industry, every service provider is the front line)... There are all kinds of negative connotations with sell, and often professions have a hard time focusing on the work and on selling the work at the same time... I'm not sure what the solution is, maybe it's about dividing the labor: those architects who find the work, and those who do the work (like in a larger firm)... Or maybe it's more difficult: requiring a shift in professional culture to be more client focused, being personable as well as professional... Ultimately we will get more respect only if we provide good service, which means relating to our clients.
The hard part is, I don't think *selling* is the third part of what we do... It is integral to what we do.
: "maybe it's more difficult: requiring a shift in professional culture to be more client focused, being personable as well as professional... Ultimately we will get more respect only if we provide good service, which means relating to our clients.
Now, that's what I'm talkin' about .......
my view is that offering competence and reliable service are not things to base our profession on. merely being competent is not remotely enough. it is in fact only what all of us should be expected to provide as a minimum.
In any case i have yet to work for a firm that can't deal with money and deadlines in a professional manner. ie, delivering on time and on budget (barring unforseen problems), and without acrimony. so am not so certain that is the real issue at all.
I have seen however, far too many times, the principals agree to too many services for too little fees, and while i understand why they did it, am still convinced it was a mistake...the kind of mistake that leads to bakruptcy really. and that is plain dumb. i think we don' get respect because we don't ask for it and we don't care about it. what we care about is making things; and we are willing, on the whole, to give up a lot to do that. it is our choice, and the consequences are apparently acceptable or we wouldn't be in the situation we are now.
my motivation is to make great architecture. since i don't have much money that means i gots to play the cheap whore to the best clients i can find...the trick is to make them believe i am a hi-class whore so i can turn some really nice tricks, and maybe earn a fairly decent living. if my goal were to make real money or earn respect from my clients i would be in a different business. so i am, in some ways, stuck.
in other ways though i believe that this situation offers opportunities. what it all comes down to is salesmanship, and in our materialist culture that kind of thing is quite open to manipulation. look at what all the starchitects have been doing since before corbusier; even mies, the great builder, was made famous by his unbuilt projects, skillfull collages published in magazines, before he ever built his ideas into reality. I think surgeons and lawyers and other professionals don't really have access to that sort of path to fame and opportunity.
so maybe we are lucky.
but it is almost 2 am and things seem to make far more sense in the middle of the night after a glass or two of wine, than in the glare of daylight...but i am hopeful.
"If we got over all the hyper-intellectual grousing and actually learned how put a project together without any mistakes within the fee and budget we quoted the client. If we did that, we'd all be damn surprised at how much more respect would flow our way."
if we put a project together without any mistakes, that probably means that we're looking to the construction industry for innovation rather than looking for innovation (and thus some mistakes) from within our own profession. imo, our willingness to be on a constant learning curve is part of the value of our profession.
i don't believe that we'd command more respect. loss of our willingness to pursue innovation, critical thinking/questioning, trial-and-error, exploration with materials and ideas, etc would only further erode the scope and number of concerns for which architects are still respected.
It seems that there may be two opposite but related problems: 1) good architects not respected, and 2) bad architects routinely hired. Now, one trouble with using the words "good" and "bad" is that they are relative--i.e., there will always be bad architects because there will always be a range of skills among architects.
But it didn't used to be that way--"architecture" was seen simply as "really good building." If you didn't want "architecture," you could hire a good builder with no pretense of art, just solid building (an art in itself, but different). Where all that changed was when some folks decided that the state government should license architects. Now, because someone has a license from the state, what they do is called "architecture." I believe this is part of the reason that laypersons aren't all that knowledgeable about architecture: we confused them. And "we" did so on purpose, because the folks clamoring for licensing laws weren't generally the already-respected architects, but rather the middling hacks seeking legitimacy (exaggeration here is for effect).
So, here we are today, with 100,000 "architects" in the U.S. and very little stuff that we would call "architecture." While informing the public about architects, licensing laws have simultaneously confused them about architecture and minimized the pressures of competition that drive innovation in the other non-professions.
My two cents.
: "the folks clamoring for licensing laws weren't generally the already-respected architects, but rather the middling hacks seeking legitimacy ... maybe I'm just naive, but what's the source of this assertion, please ?
when that golden retreiver drops the frisbee at your feet, you're supposed to fling it again as hard as you can. that's your purpose.
funny that you phrase this .... like this...
i feel as if I'm the person, as designer, who's (will be, mostly) fighting for the practical durable design choices, vs silly (tired) trendy brainwashed client junk propaganda in newspaper articles etc.
yeah, more in the realm of gambling. :-)
and then the client requires the services of a physician :-)
is architecture both an art and an instrument that sells? if it doesn't sell, will it get built? (architecture is expensive)
or... should a good design sell itself? to be efficient, should design tools always be sales tools (pushed far as sellable media)? to sell both to the client, and to stakeholders?
is the problem that there a disconnect between architect and work and client?
by sales i dont mean product pushing... i mean empathy and communication.
does art not have empathy and communication?
architecture exists on the boundaries of art, science and religion
religion??? Now we are talkin' crazy!!
no, no, trace. i'm a born again architect.
what does architecture have to do with religion? sure, some architecture is religious, but my house has nothing to do with it nor does my office.
Thank you for enquiry. The Department of Standardization is pleased to inform the world at large, standardly, of standards selectively codified for your noble obedience in principled, trustworthy, and collective action by self will. The virtues of standard obedience set forth by the self selected standards of and by this department adhere to the righteous principles that have been the guiding light standard bequeathed to us by our illustrious fore standard bearers.
By will of self selection, the role of the Standardized Architecturalized Standardizer as standardized by the Department of Standardization is and always has been to standardize Architecture exemplarily by the right given us by our fore standard bearers to standardize the world in order to project a compliant structure that all will be standardized in a righteous and more selectively standardized style. Noncompliance is not be negotiable, this by self selected will.
By the light of the Standard, we self selectively face a prosperous future of total standardization in our world at large, in standardized health, strength, beauty, success, and fame. We at the department are self righteously pleased with our standard selves with these recent codifications and ask every standard one to celebrate with us by submitting your self ordained high chair qualifications to your area AIA president for premiere joint committee leadership. World standardization is gloriously near because of our standardized leadership, self selected vision, and standard mental thinking. Our struggles to standardize the non-compliant are bearing great fruit. A vast new generation Architecturalized Standardizers is now being born that will, by the Power of the Standard, standardize every facet of human life to and by our standard design. It is indeed a glorious time to be alive, hail, this by the Light of Standard!!!!
Again, by the will of our selective standardized, righteous, mental thinking, the Department of Architecturalized Standardization here proclaims by code the Architecturalized Standardizer authorizes by selectively standardized, pure, architecturalized standards exemplified by this department’s historical right of willfull leadership in authorized high chair joint committees on the prescribed norm of the Standard and free from the distortion and corruption of non-compliance.
Thank you again for your enquiry.
when i say religion, i mean belief. religion just sounded better.
by belief i mean hope, values etc. thing which are beyond art and science.
sounds alot like...
Nikos A. Salingaros, "Anti Architecture and Religion"
"20th Century Architecture as Cult"
In our day and age, these guys would seem to be a bit cultish:INTBAU Is architecture just a bunch of different cults, everyone pushing their own morality on each other?
But then, maybe it's because rationality and commerce is the new religion of the age... It's funny, but I actually find these types to be pretty radical... And maybe there is a point there too... The question is whether modernism is really ethical... Sure it's efficient, it's "progressive"... but does it endure? To be environmentally and culturally sustainable? Is the rate at which we build essentially destroying our environment? Should we be building less, and building to last? Is there is more to architecture than what drives the business / profession / economy... Should architects have another "REAL purpose"?
the issue i have with "sustainability" is that it is simply not in our nature to be so. there is no possibility that humans can exist truely sustainably. we are just prolonging the inevitability.
is this true, mh?
if you look at native american and african cultures before european influence, it seems that they handled sustainability just fine. but then they didn't feel it was necessary to 'own' things, either.
is our western/european influenced nature necessarily the same as human nature?
Steven, i think this is true.
The New Zealand Maori made the Moa(giant emu like bird) extinct.
but yes, the further back you go the weaker the argument may become.
i don't think this is a western/european thing.
Anything's possible. We could have a quantum leap in consciousness - it seems like 1/4-1/3 of the world is ready once there is an obvious direction. But with groups like the religious right and Bush in power, we could very well just end up killing everyone/everything and all going to hell (so to speak).
I'll remain optimistic that we will be taking two steps forward, one back, for the upcoming years.
oh, mh, I don't buy your argument 'cause there is so much evidence that we can 'adapt', both physically and psychologically. We don't 'need' to destroy. There are simply too many people that are lazy, imho. Kill television and we'll get rid of half the problem.
Complacency is a disease but it can be stopped.
nobodies being complacent.
i think you need to understand what "truely sustainable" is before you say we can all do it. truely sustainable basically means living in a primal state, like animals.
This isn't a negative statement, just something to understand in looking forward.
energy and technology both creates and destroys.
i think sustainable civilization is possible... its about thinking outside the box, it can be as small as one thing, a technology or energy that revolutionizes thinking and culture...
it could almost be like the "cold fusion" false alarm that happened in the 80's... if water molecules became the ultimate limitless cheap, and ecologically saafe energy source... that revolution has largely been discredited as being a mistake or even a hoax, but if it had been real, it would have revolutionized global economic power and solved many of the energy and environmental problems that cause so much strife and tragedy in our world today.
more likely, it will be numerous lesser technological revolutions that will produce change... of course, the greatest barrier to innovation and sustainability is not technology, it's political opposition... power that has money invested in the way things are now... there are plenty of large entrenched players that would have so much to lose from change, these players need to be forced out of complacency... tragically, it may take catastrophic falls before the world wakes up...
but i think where architecture plays the greatest role here is not in developing these new technologies, but in creating a market for them... creating applications for them, and making them profitable and mainstream within our culture, giving these technologies a competitive edge and creative energy to feed the enormous money that is getting pumped into this research and development...
on the bright side, "green funds" and companies researching green solutions are the hot item... sustainable is doing well in the stock markets, reflecting current expectations of future performance.
on a side note, maybe its just a dream, and maybe i'm just too much of a conspiracy theorist, but... sometimes i wonder if cold fusion was real... it wouldn't surprise me all that much if such a technology exists which would eventually basically make next to free unlimited and environmentally efficient energy...
there are just too many people who would lose too much from this to allow it to happen for the general good...oil companies, entire economies that depend on energy for survival, and governments who have invested too much in resources, stocks that depend on energy sources for their revenue, fear of change, powers that want to maintain the status quo, fear of competition from developming countries...
well but thats probably just paranoia...
nope, ain't paranoia, I don't think. Money makes the world go round, take it out and we have chaos.
I agree it will be smaller leaps forward. Things that can start small with little impact, but grow over time (and no doubt be bought by oil companies).
BMW will be releasing a hydrogen car
http://www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089614/
The common art in all fields is to convince the client/ patient that they were instrumental in solving the problem, that they matter in the equation, and a little bit of convincing that you are suggesting something that is a good fit for the specific situation. architects want to use client money to design their poetic dreams and don't want the client to get in the way. It is a practical art in that you have to find a solution within the limitations and constraints of the project. That could be zoning laws, money, or clients with bad taste.
In medicine the patient pays a huge role especially in diagnosis where they are the person who knows the manifestations of the symptoms better than anyone because they have to live with them. The idea that a patient comes to a doctor to get a problem fixed is called tertiary medicine. This is not the ideal way to "practice" medicine. Primary medicine prevents problems from happening by education and lifestyle changes. This involves patients to a much greater degree. The issue of compliance arises. Will the patient do what is the best for them? if not what can we prescribe that is good enough that they WILL do? Because it makes no sense to have the best exercise prescription or diet all written out and have the client not do it. I have changed from the term patient to client now because i believe it reflects the teamwork that has to be there in order for the objective to be reached, namely a healthy body or at least a healthier body and disease prevention.
Maybe its the same with architecture.
There needs to be a trust between the client and architect to dicipher the issues and clues surrounding the project. The expertise of the architect does not make them more important than the client. If architects get to exercise the artistic role at all it is as a commissioned artist. They can always quit the job if they don't agree with the clients opinions but they wont get paid. The other thing is average people have a more educated eye than in the past. It may not be a formal education but we are all bombarded by design on every front. Some architects beleive they knwo what would look best for their company logo or web site design- why? because they are architects? I guess the original point was that architects are not God's gift to anyone so they shouldn't be snobs about the whole thing. so many years of school and a few years of practice does it make you better than the janitor or more important? The other side of the coin is let us do what you are paying us for. Alot of architects have technical skills but no asthetic sense. There are architects who can pick and choose what they do but how do you get there? Some people say you should only take jobs where you get complete freedom given by the client. but that might mean buying lots of ramen. People like Ando have to piss other architects off. If you don't have that luxury the art is how can you get satisfaction from your work and please the client?
trace:
yep, its all money that makes the world move... so accoring to the conspiracy theory, environmentally friendly and abundant energy technology exists already, but it's subject to the "IPOD" effect... Apple might have newer and better technologies and designs for the IPOD already in the works and ready to be sold, but they have to release the newer versions slowly, gradually, maybe once a year in order to draw their profit out slowly, milk each new technology for all the money its worth before making it obsolete... Otherwise, if they came out with the IPOD nano right away, they skip over the IPOD mini, IPOD shuffle, etc. without any profit from them...
Energy interests need to milk oil for what its worth before allowing any reall technological progre$$...
- great post
sounds like donald Trump speaking - "The art of the deal"
i don't know that that's really a conspiracy theory so much as just our corporate-centered brand of capitalism right now. oil interests are incredibly strong in american politics, so it's not difficult to see one big reason why we don't invest in renewable energy sources or stricter environmental standards. neoconservatives in america have convinced the majority of americans that it is american to place corporate interests and freedoms over environmental security and individual and communal human well-being. they're biased films, but "the corporation" and "the end of suburbia" really explain this preference for corporations quite well. check out this article for how property rights (as one example of this) have changed from being people-centric to corporate-centric in america.
i think where it becomes a conspiracy theory is if there is actually a plan... intelligent elements which seek to control the flow of technology... i think its not so much that we don't invest in renewable energy sources, its that investment is actually made to see that we don't...
of course there is a plan!! These guys are playing with billions, probably trillions! They are smart, savvy, and seasoned business men - to think that things just are happening by coincidence would be a little naive, I think.
It's just business. It's ugly and it sucks, but it's just business. They manipulate markets and plan for future growth - like 'where can we get more $$ out of America? Hey, I know, we'll pay off politicians, keep CAFE really low and introduce encourage the purchase of gas guzzlers'. Not a conspiracy, as it is pretty transparent, just ugly greed and business.
One of the first things Reagan did when he entered the White House was remove Carter's solar panels on the roof. That pretty much says it all.
Maybe the panels were old and not working correctly. who knows.
I dont beleive we have a real option yet for a new energy source..
i was dissappointed to here about ethanol needing too much coal to produce any significant energy to be a viable option.
solar and wind are relatively useless as energy sources- with our great consumption
and that is where i believ the problem lies with the individual- each person is guzzling 24 barrells of oil a year!
300 million people consume more than the Chinese at 1.2 billion.
that says it all
I believe we have big corporations to sustain the economy- so lower production cost etc. Its really the individual that is creating the corporations. Start a small business if you don't like big business.
The US has amazing opportunities and money available to encourage small business. Look at google becoming a large corporation- they started as a small business- microsoft also. I dont beleive there is a conspiracy theory. People want more money and companies grow and get bigger. Just wait as Apple grows- people love it now but once it gets big people will hate the "man".
We also dont want the government to pry in our daily lives and we dont want to pay taxes which means no social healthcare . This is one of the reasons why we cant compete in a global market as small bussinesses.
if we consume less the demand will be less and therefore the dependancy will be less.
I beleive the US is going through another "age" change. We are reinventing ourselves and that means growing pains. We went from industrial to information relatively quickly but the industries have been slow to adapt mainly i believe because it involves people. People are payed too much in the automobile industry. Think of the problems with GM and Delco. Its like the Postal service - people get $30 an hour to put a rubber sealon a door for example. Now lets say I am GM i am loosing money as far as auto sales to foreighn corps. I pay my unskilled workers too much, i pay rediculous amount of $$$ for healthcare, I have all my equipment geared toward the internal cumbustion engine, the transportation infrastructure is depandant on basically gas stations. Think of the money it would cost to completely transform the old system to a new one- new point of purchase equipment, new production equipment, new training and education for workers, etc etc.
Its a HUGE leap and not that simple as people make it sound.
first solution- take public transport- force the govt to create better public transport and provide incentives for private big business to invest in public transport- I live in Japan and it works ( one problem- the US is a huge area so the infrastructure would be a huge expense)
second step all buses and govt vehicles should move to alternative energy sources in order to help the environment blah blah blah- and increase public trust and confidence in these new alternatives- becaue that is one of the biggest obstacles is public perception. In other words we have to change 300 million peoples minds and more importantly their behavior- and for a group of people who are religiously protective of "personal rights" and unwilling to give up freedoms for the good of the community. Then there is also the love and romance of the automobile. When Bush recently was in Russia Puten nostalgically showed Bush his 1st car.
who are "these guys" and who are the neo conservatives? It sounds alot like propaganda and name calling, and a little vague. everyone can vote and even more important refuse to work for a large corporation if they think that will help- but the biggest thing you can do is stop consuming so much.
I am wondering how this thraed has gotton so far off topic. can someone help pullit back?
hd - why can't solar and wind be viable alternatives? We can thank the Republican's for killing 20+ years that could have been used to research. If the time was spent on it, I am confident it would succeed. Not to replace individual transportation needs, but many other things.
There is no conspiracy, as I mentioned, the manipulation big oil has done, via politics, money and raw power, is obvious and transparent. They kill competition and exploit what they need to to keep raking in the buck.
babs - do you really think law and medicine are client driven? I don't. I think they are monetarily driven. Most docs and lawyers I know, went into the fields for the money, not to serve clients.
I see nothing wrong with having a personal agenda. Actually, I think selfish/personal agenda's in architecture are extremely healthy. If all we did was 'serve' our clients, then the profession would make even worse crap than it does now (I know, hard to imagine) - that's generally speaking.
The best architects in history were driven by a constant desire to do something new, something better. Good clients, ie ones with large pocket books and an interest in creating something exceptional, are the catalyst.
Any business needs to give the cients quality services or they won't succeed, but I think this is just general business (and common sense). I'd actually suggest we need more firms that maintian their integrity as designers and push their agenda further and further. Maybe then we'd get more innovation.
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.