" Winning an award in NO way makes one's designs "more acceptable" to potential clients. Many of these "award winning" designers put buildings on paper that are not realistic as "real" structures. "  

- Richard Head

people love to hate architects because they don't fully understand all that we do. if their characterization of our work is only that we produce fantasy drawings that we don't know how to build, who is out there communicating otherwise? on the contrary, there are plenty of folks (engineers, contractors, commercial real estate folks and developers) who are more than happy to claim that our projects would never be possible without their expertise - claims which are partly true, but which also allow them to take credit for a large part of the work the architect DOES do. 

architectural publications very seldom develop the full narrative of what it takes to get architectural projects realized: maybe partly because it wouldn't be compelling reading for their audiences, maybe partly because architects are complicit in wanting to make it look easy. [no matter what we say about honoring process, most of us promote our work as product.]

finally, architecture projects are often only answerable to a particular 'client', even if the project is a public project. this gives rise to the impression that we inflict our visions on a public who hasn't had the opportunity to buy in prior to their construction. as painful as public hearings and open presentations might be, and as much time as they burn, these are valuable in getting a cynical public on board - if, that is, you can get them to show up. if you can't, once again, their understanding is limited to 1) their surprise upon seeing it under construction, or 2) (if you're lucky) the fancy/fantasy rendering in the weekly business newspaper, from which they take away the understanding/resentment that it's already been decided.

we're complicit in this. while we have a significant and valuable expertise, we don't often present it in fruitful ways, opening ourselves up for criticism of elitism, disconnectedness, and being un-realistic.

while i'd like to believe that we could fix this, and i spend a lot of my time trying to make sure that those around me understand what i do and that i work as part of a team of engaged people in doing it, i'm not hopeful. this same issue has been around for decades.  

I blame Howard Roark: "The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself."

people love to hate architects because they don't fully understand all that we do. if their characterization of our work is only that we produce fantasy drawings that we don't know how to build, who is out there communicating otherwise? on the contrary, there are plenty of folks (engineers, contractors, commercial real estate folks and developers) who are more than happy to claim that our projects would never be possible without their expertise - claims which are partly true, but which also allow them to take credit for a large part of the work the architect DOES do.

I would also say that architecture from about the late 1940s to 1970s did some pretty horrible things in retrospect— however, the only people who really understand the ramifications of modernist interventions on the social and economic fabric are going to be the type of people who can easily debate architectural theory and the merits of various urban physical models.

I think most people's exposure to architecture comes in two forms:

The Cost Overrun Architect— When a controversial public project goes way over budget usually during the construction phase due to numerous factors, these architectural wonders usually impact people directly in the loss of services and increase in property taxes. Most of these projects tend to governmental in nature and, therefore, delays in the opening, renovation and relocation of buildings that house government services impacts everyone.

The Mandated Architect— When a city grows and matures, there comes a time when the city deems architects to be necessary. Unfortunately, by the time architecture becomes a necessity for a city, a growing number of properties require renovations that in turn require adherence to newer codes.  And because cities frequently require an architect's stamp for anything to do with decking, foundations, structural supports, plumbing, entry points or new construction, smaller jobs are often done illegally because of the cost and hassle of an architect: especially when one considers having to hire an architect for a $300 repair to a decked front porch.

As for the last one, one of the libertarian think-tanks wrote a journal article that shows a pretty convincing correlation between "mandated architecture" and blight. Their reasoning was that a strict permitting and review process deters property owners from maintaining their property and that often leads to a deflationary, accelerated loss of property value in a community.

EXACTLY, HandsumYo.....it's Architects that hate other Architects...It's been my experience that the public loves us...(except for developers...)

As an aspiring architect that works for a subcontractor, I can understand both sides of these arguments.  While I do believe a civil engineer could muster out a building, it would probably not be a great building and full of its own issues.  But with people wanting less of a building and more of a room for a TV/escape area (at a low price), the desire for a great design has become less important to the general public.  But most of the time, the best architecture has astronomical or unlimited budgets, which is why I sometimes get frustrated with architects.

In my experience, architects have a propensity to go over-budget.  With a set budget, an architect's preliminary design that we bid off of constantly goes over-budget, and the compromises the architect eventually has to make can be sudden, causing frustration for everyone involved with the construction side.  With an architect's plate full of design issues, it can take a long time for an architect to give us an answer of what they want to do.  Also, every once and awhile, an architect will give us plan sets that have impractical, time consuming, un-effective parts that can be a hassle for a sub, considering they have to make money on a project too.  Not that the architect is wrong in making these designs, but I've seen the reaction from both the client and contractors on these types of designs.  Clients, Contractors and Architects can have a pretty tense relationship between the three sometimes, especially towards the end of a project, when the budget is running low.

So for a lot of general contractors and sub-contractors, architects can come off as stubborn, pretentious people that are concerned about their own designs than the most 'efficient' and cost-saving method.  Frank Lloyd Wright's infamous reputation hasn't helped clear this misconception either.

Plus, programs like Revit can make anyone think they can design a building, rendering the need for an architect as superfluous.  Perhaps that may be true in the future, but that is a whole different issue.

I think SketchUp is to be blame, not revit. I have seen so many non architects, who come by the office with an SketchUp model and pretend they can design. The one line they always say is " why should i pay you that amount if my 7 year old son can design a building in sketchup easily".

This is NOT an issue that has arisen since Revit and SketchUp. You might have heard some of the same comments about architects in the 80s, 90s, or 00s - well before either of those programs were in such common use. This is a big issue, and it has little to do with software. It's about people and relationships. It's about our behavior, how we're portrayed, and a myriad of little experiences that others have with us or things they hear about us that create impressions. Each of us will spend our careers either reinforcing negative reputations or dispelling them through the way we interact with people. Probably a bit of both.

I work with sky-hooks, super glue, and budgets can always be obtained by taking the roof off the house...who needs a roof.

Lay people rarely hate architects IMO.  They are the one's who tend to actually like architects because they see a new or refreshing design and assume it is automatically good because it is new.  The ones who hate architects are the people who have experiences with the personality of  architects,  has an artistic sense and own aesthetic opinions,  and never get what they want when they ask for something from an architect.  But one thing I think we can all get behind as an answer to the question of why people hate architects in general and that is they are fundamentally different psychologically than other professions' professionals--they think in spaces thus they speak in a foreign tongue to them.  So a lack of understanding of what the architect is thinking leads to their dismissal by someone who has even the smallest complaint about a detail of a design. If peoplendon't understand something about a design and can't resolve their confusion, rightaway it receives an automatic negative judgement against it.  So, I think it is a perception architects havethat the general public hates them.  Most buildings have something wrong with them in SOMEONES's opinion.  And you are likely to hear about it.  You're NOT likely to hear when someone thinks a design is acceptable (most people don't even give a building's design ANY ounce of thought, which means most people accept the architecture that is around them and therefore don't hate architects). :)

Most architects do suck, that's the problem.  Or, perhaps, they produce sucky work for whatever reason (feeding a family, paying off absurd debt, etc., come to mind).

Like music and most things creative, just because you are successful doesn't mean that you are "good", and just because you aren't successful, doesn't mean you are "bad", either.

So, when I look around most cities, subdivisions, etc., I'd say most of the buildings do, indeed, suck.

(but really, the public loves architects - the creative with smarts and business savvy...or so they think)

the way i think of it is this:  if you hire a muralist to paint a wall at a pre-school, you're not hiring them to create their masterpiece-- you're hiring them to paint snow white and the seven dwarves.  it could be vincent van gogh, but he was hired to paint disney so he's painting disney.

as architects we have a second agenda, and clients don't want to pay for that.

it's like telling a color blind person they need to paint the room a different color.

as architects we have a second agenda, and clients don't want to pay for that.

I think you are right, but without that "agenda" we are are no longer architects.  The muralist who is painting exactly what the client asks for is a craftsman not an artist. 

i think the word is illustrator.

architecture without architect is builder?

not sure the disliking really matters.  our clients know what we give them.  i mean they really KNOW the difference between what we can do and what a builder would do.  otherwise they don't come to us.

anyway, at parties people always say they love architecture.  still waiting to hear my job is bollocks.  ah strike that.  architects say it all the time....but nobody important.  see, i just did it myself!

illustrator your right.  my english is not so good.

I think the public finds architects "okay", because for some reason when you tell someone you're an architect they almost always say that they wanted to study architecture at some stage. Like it's something you can get done over a long weekend. I know that all other professions in construction absolutely loathe architects.

Yeah, the comments at the bottom are by people in the know, or sort of.  The one telling comment is about civil engineers being able to do the building (well, most likely, it would be PE/SE types) and there's no guarantee the building will be "good."  Some states allow engineers to stamp architectural drawings, but that's another tangent.

For the general public, it's like this:

Person 1:  "What do you do?"

Person 2:  "I'm an architect."

Person 1:  "Oooooh."

Guess what?  I recently learned that a large percentage of the American population has a negative perception of priests.  Is that a surprise?  Many are arrogant a-holes.

well for starter i think it may have something to do with the egotistical smug obnoxiously arrogant "i am better than the whole world it self" a-hole attitude most architects have.

My impression is that, overall, people are impressed by the architecture profession.

Rather, it's pompous, smug a*holes that the public widely detests-- be they lawyers, bankers, heiresses, artists, architects, whoever.  I don't read that common dislike as job-specific.

i've never heard anyone in real life say they don't like ted mosby.  people tend to like architects.

every profession has image problems. Lawyers, Politicians, Cops, Scientists.

Ice Cream vendors have it easy though, just go do that.

I have detected a tone or 2 from observant

Just saw this thread, and I think that it's interesting that the people with negative comments are railing against a fairly conservative, contextual, tectonics and construction-driven architect. Of course his work still has some dramatic/experiential moments, but it doesn't seem like those commenters know the difference between him and other more critical/conceptual or formally experimental architects who would orbit much further from the earth. It's like they're just latching on to the idea of not liking any architect.

I also second the notion that the general public loves architects. Going to a party full of non-architects is a really disorienting ego boost.

I have detected a tone or 2 from observant

I'm missing something.  I think that architects are viewed both positively and negatively, almost if a mobile hanging in perfect balance in one of your dwelling's rooms, from within and outside of the profession.

It starts in architecture school.  Who do you see?  Pompous ass holes who in fact have talent, pompous ass holes who are poseurs extraordinaire, introverted worker bees who don't express themselves well because it's just not their nature, extroverts who are snake oil salesmen in training, practical people who are fairly well rounded,  eccentric people, neurotic people, and funny, sarcastic, and irreverent people who poke fun at everything and everybody.  Have I missed anybody?

That continues into practice.

snail: "Going to a party full of non-architects is a really disorienting ego boost."

In my experience, it all depends on whether the party goers have any prior working experience with an architect. I've been to many parties where I get cornered by someone who served on a building committee at his / her church or work -- it's been rare situation where I didn't have to spend a lot of unpleasant time listing patiently  to their complaints about how the architect made this mistake or that and how the architect "wasted" money by insisting on this upgrade or that.

On the other hand, if the party goers don't have any direct work experience with architects, they do tend to think we lead wonderful professional lives.

Ignorance is bliss.

Most Architects do not care for others, and how they think. They are trained on a time line budget to get the job completed as soon as possible (charet). So, for most architects they do not participate in higher education and learning skills.

Most will stick to there old dated ways of doing things. The schools are much more adaptable, and are excelled in technologies than what the architects of today can manage.

Larger companies do not want to think or train their employees for the long term, and their future. Most architectural companies are already thinking to get rid of them the same day they started.

Most architects (users) today hire younger people and magically expect them to do all of their work for them, and pay them very little. These same architects will go to schools and use younger people for their minds and great ideas.

Most all of these architects were trained or brainwashed into believing they are faultless. They pretend to be bigger than they really are. Finally, all architects are now just computer technicians because they only do what they are told to do by their clients, and the building Departments.

Computers will be able to design buildings and implement the building codes needed by just scanning sketches or talking to the computer and tell it what is needed. Its called BIM (building information modeling), such as Revit by “Autodesk”.

These type of computer programs will transform the world of architecture to new heights, and take away all the complications. The builders can utilize the computer programing of BIM, and directly access all the information needed.

The builders already know what they are looking for, and are the ones who can benefit, and take these technologies a step further. They can use it to their advantage, and design buildings directly without any assistance needed.

These type of computer programs will transform the world of architecture to new heights, and take away all the complications.

Sometimes words are simply unable to describe the magnitude of stupidity.

Selective perception is the process by which individuals perceive
what they want to in media messages while ignoring opposing viewpoints.
It is a broad term to identify the behavior all people exhibit to tend
to "see things" based on their particular frame of reference. It also
describes how we categorize and interpret sensory information in a way
that favors one category or interpretation over another. In other words,
selective perception is a form of bias because we interpret information
in a way that is congruent with our existing values and beliefs.
Psychologists believe this process occurs automatically

I give up, why don't you go join a team or something, that way I wouldn't be wasting my time here with an un-reasonable person like you.  I'm not writing for myself, I'm concerned about the poor college kids, and there future's dealing with people like you.

"those poor college kids" get a computer-dominated "education" (at great expense) that leaves them functionally unprepared to enter the workplace.

That I not selective perception, it is common knowledge and is widely discussed here.

The snooty know-it-all mentality displayed by gregknow in the above posts are why the public loves to hate architects.