(Someone on board must be able to write about, speak about, defend, contextualize, and even critique their own work in an academic setting. This is architecture's version of peer review, and helps sort out (over much time and with much debate) the really new and interesting from the boring, the pointless, and the untrue. 'Criticism is a device for detecting false claims,' it takes a while and it's not a perfect process but it usually works. Architecture has, to its benefit, always been intimately connected with ideas, let's maintain that connection.)
2) does interesting work that's formally advanced and forward thinking
(No copiers or retreaders. 'No Historicists' goes without saying, but why do we put up with rip-off artists who only go five years back? This has nothing to do with pointless debates over who invented the grid or the minimal surface, this condition exists to exclude the set of corporate firms that make their living copying, sanitizing, and rehashing the formal experiments of others, and selling them to their only slightly adventurous clients. You Know Who You Are.)
3) recognizes and prioritizes energy efficiency at every stage of the building process
(This is just necessary in the 21st century. Even if we're not screwing up the weather with oil, we're sure screwing up global politics. All the arguments are elsewhere and not worth rehashing here, just do it. It doesn't have to be thematized, and if it were, it probably wouldn't survive the first or second test anyway. We need a new word for 'sustainability' (sustaining what, exactly?) but the principles are there, and they can be applied without falling into the dual traps of fake high-tech or neotrad nostalgia.)
4) recognizes and prioritizes social and economic justice
(Is your firm building falsley 'transparent' media headquarters for totalitarian state monopolies that subsist on censorship and human rights abuses? Is your construction crew a bunch of third world indentured servants, under the employ of bigoted sheiks who punish homosexuality with the death penalty? Cut that shit out. You should be ashamed of yourself. Does your building have an awkward relationship to the street? Take care of that, too.)
5) pays commensurate with experience and hard work
(Ever hear of May Day? Look it up, people fought and died for the 40 hour work week. My education and time in the profession was bought with Blood, Sweat, Tears, and Cash. I'll give some more of the first three to you if you give some of the fourth back to me. Please don't expect me to take part in the creation of a city that I can't afford to live in.)
6) has an open ended conception of what architecture is and can be
(Form is not everything, neither is your ego. Get over yourself and your limited idea of what sort of work is 'advancing the discourse'. Let a few other voices into the conversation, you might learn from them, and they might help you make something really cool and different. 'Formal Autonomy' and 'Disciplinary Specificity' are not excuses for acting like a jerk. Future art history texts may not remember which architects were nice people, but everyone you meet on a daily basis will.)
*In other words: be smart, make cool stuff, stay aware of the bigger picture and be nice to people. How hard is all that?
Maybe I could be clearer: I'm not talking about just your average firm here. And I'm not talking about pragmatics or compromise either. That's why there's that [i]ideal[/] up there in the thread title.
I'm trying to assemble what might be the basic critieria for a truly world class architecture firm. This is at least partly in response to the Philip Nobel ICA review: what would good work truly look like? What would it be like to participate in it's creation?
It's also, at least partly: Where do I want to work? Why does every firm out there fall short on at least one of these items?
I'm definitely not coming at this from the point of view of the client. The client is deliberately left out here in an attempt to isolate other variables. For the purposes of this discussion: Fuck the Client. Architects exist partly to educate clients, if we did exactly what was asked, do you think anything would ever change?
I'm not going to argue with the concept of defining an 'ideal firm'. But I think you are making a big mistake leaving clients out of it. Without any clients? #'s 2, 3, and 5 go right out the window (especially 5). With bad clients? you can toss #6 out the window too.
In my ideal firm, GREAT CLIENTS would be at or near the top of my list. Contrary to our usual experience, a good client can actually contribute to the process and make it better. They can give you a budget that allows you to make great things; or they can be tightwads that value engineer all the best ideas out of the project. They can encourage your creativity; or they can decide they don't want to go too far out on a limb.
Leaving the client out of the equation leaves the whole FIRM out of the equation.
Fogey, rationalist,
I agree with the fact that the client is important. But as far as I know, the IDEAl firm as to try to push forward a few things that are not totally related to clients. As you guys know, to get something that looks good and that seduce the client, you have to work on a lot of stuff that are not completely visible, both in terms of detailing, cost reduction, and architectural thinking I think. So yourname's ideal firm may be a bit idealistic, but you shouldn't try to hard to be too pragmatic either...
i'm with french. no extremes necessary in defining an ideal. fogey's maybe gone a little too far in making a point counter to yourname's questions.
this book is one that i've reread a couple of times because i'm interested in how it defines the professional ethics of architecture. in a nutshell, that the ethical architect is responsible to not only client but also to the general public/society, users (if distinct from client), and self. and responsible to these stakeholders not only in the present but in the future. if you use these markers in your definition of an ideal firm, you'll end up in a different place than either fogey or yourname.
I will second (or third?) the client thing. While some clients are a pain and it sometimes seems like it would be nice to operate in a vacuum. But then I have good clients, that push the design where I would have stopped, etc. It's a process (didn't they teach you that in school!? Seriously, if academia is important the process should be paramount).
The rest has already been said. I personally feel pretty strongly about theory. It's fun and inspiring but is useless anywhere outside of the minds of architecture students. Basically, it serves to keep architect an elitist field and keep theory professors employed (that can't/won't build).
I just think that a basic knowledge of this area is fine. Teach students about business, about professional options and possibly a tad about the politics of getting progressive things built.
I think it's all about balance. Too much academia and you are in a vacuum, or never moving beyond a paper architect (which I think is just fine, btw, but not ideal) too much pragmatism and you won't ever challenge what can be done.
My list:
1. A firm that attracts and retains great clients
2. Is run well, commands high pay and gets it
3. Pays well - prosper one, prosper all
4. Pushes boundaries through collaborative exploration (like open discussions on new markets, new technologies, etc., then small tests to test these theories)
5. Diversity - architecture, graphics, 3D, art, models, etc., are all used and experimented with.
6. Uncompromised design - this is the one everyone wants. I think the key to this success is 1. and 2. (theoretically, you can turn away clients that will not be part of a symbiotic process, or not pay well)
Think that's it...I'll be back once the coffee settles in
these are ideals because in reality they are desires in conflict. a firm that bills high and pays well is not spending time paying people to build models and push boundaries. that is because model building endless exploration is usually NOT billable time. that's why certain firms have unpaid and low paid students/interns working away. Clients aren't paying for fifty study models of the renovation of their house. unlike what we see in magazines and in books, all the fancy graphics and models end up being filed under the heading of marketing.
I really think the client is a Red Herring here. Not irrelevant, but tangential. I can't be clearer: I'm talking about exactly the 30 or so firms who don't have to worry about attracting clients. They're fighting clients off with a stick, in fact, and the clients who get through to them are among the most prominent government, business, and cultural institutions in the world. I'm determined not to name names with this but I think you can all imagine the kinds of practices I'm talking about.
The problem is this: as vado pointed out, these are desires in conflict.
Why does energy efficiency always seem to go hand in hand with formal retreads and an academic position that devolves into puritanistic moralisms? Why does the ability to pay your staff fairly, while still doing adventurous work, always seem to correlate with a bunch of projects in Asian and Gulf State pseudo-democracies? Why does formal innovation and academic cred always seem to accompany a belligerent attitude? Why do good business practices always seem to go along with weak and repetitive form?
Again, I'm resisting calling anyone out by name, but does any of the above seem familiar?
Again, pragmatics and compromise are beside the point, if this was a revolutionary manifesto, what would you think if someone said 'well sure, the pursuit of happiness is fine and all that, but what about kings? A good country is only possible with a great king!'
My ideal firm embodies a lot of the principles already mentioned, so I will not go on about them ad nauseam. However, one thing that I have decided is important in the way a firm is run is how the employees are treated and given responsibility. I like the idea of either no one having titles or everyone having titles......I think it's important to keep open lines of communication with employees......and I think it's important to have a firm-wide "sense of humor" but not to disrespect people. I guess I find myself thinking a lot about these types of management issues when they become problems in my own office :o/
Beyond that....an ideal architecture firm would fill their time with challenges! If there is ever down time, find new programs to learn or participate in competitions. An ideal firm is also always pushing the envelope of technology in the office (I know this is expensive but this is my ideal!).
And of course, MY ideal firm would produce only projects which renewed or sustained their environment.
i agree that the great client is a major part of the ideal firm. but i think its more than just the client... basically, the *ideal* firm is the people firm...
it has the best clients, best relationships with the best contractors, best consultants and collaborators, engineers, artists possibly, and has the best employees and leadership... it's *connected* internally and externally...
to be honest, i value somewhat alot of the things that yourname mentions above. we are talking about *ideal* firms here: progressive, open minded, socially minded, sustainable, etc... We're not talking *real*.
however, i think the list is missing the boat. all of those ideals in that list there are *values*. they are not the means... the means is the people that do the work. EVERY mofo firm has some grand bullshit values, blahblahblah... but it aint ideal if they are all talk and can't do anything... the ideal firm is the one that can make it happen... it's not an isolated heroic art, we need to realize that architects live in a market and in a real world social, working and business conditions... an industry... whether they obey the traditional territory of their own industry or not... you can impact the market, but you can't do that alone... it's business skills.
I agree with bRink, the key is to have the political and social skills to make all that happen, wether it's talking clients into doing something cool or what.
'the means is the people that do the work' -that's dope, and spot-on.
those 30 firms exist not because of their manifesto but because of their people... there is a whole marketing and relations engine there, people actually working on things, and a process and delivery engine... way of working that actually gets stuff built... unless you're talking about purely conceptual firms that never actually build anything?
I can't be clearer: I'm talking about exactly the 30 or so firms who don't have to worry about attracting clients. They're fighting clients off with a stick, in fact, and the clients who get through to them are among the most prominent government, business, and cultural institutions in the world.
I'll accept that. You didn't define that in your concept of an ideal firm, so I felt the need to define for MY ideal firm that it be one of those who gets/has great clients. If that's not one of the points, how can we know that it's an assumption? I got the impression from reading your bit that you were purposely not adknowledging the existence of/need for clients at all.
Since so many of you believe a good client is essential to have an ideal firm. What is a good client?
My experience has shown the only good clients we ever have in are office are the ones who are rich and to busy with their own lives to learn what we do and why we do it. These individuals are often very intellingent and know that they've hired professionals who will deliver a quality product. Period.
alfrejas- that sure does sound like a good client. The other sort of good client I can think of is the type that knows their building is a giant advertisement for their business and is willing to make an investment in something that says good things about them, and is generally more interested in it is a long-term investment and less as an immediate expense.
disagree, alfrejas, the best clients are the ones that are highly engaged with the project, but have a respect for your expertise as a designer. i've also found art collectors and people associated with the arts to be very good clients. they understand what goes into the product and have a sense of the value of good design. it's almost like dating. when you see eye-to-eye with the client and have a completely transparent relationship, good things often follow.
my old boss once told me, in reference to a specific client request, "fuck'em, they don't know what they want...they hired us because we know what they want"...almost all of his clients loved him and returned with more business...very soft spoken man, actually...oh, and ran a very lucrative successful design firm...
personally, i tend to listen to clients, and believe they are an essential element of good projects, but...
Now that I think about it I'm going to totally agree with yourname. I don't know how many times I've told my boss that our profession would be perfect if it wasn't for clients and contractors. Oh a boy can dream....
yeah, i'm a little leary on the "educate" the client thing...
i worked for a guy, felt that everyone that came into the office was a dunce, and needed to be taught everything relevant about arch history. would make all these absurd claims, like, " i never worked for kahn, but i feel like he was my mentor"
the best clients he had tended to walk away when they realized he was a pompous ass that just happened to have a little money and connections, and that was about it.
but i will agree that the better clients i've worked with were totally engaged in the project.
umm yeah....jafidler I'm going to have to disagree with ya. I have yet to come across a client who I see eye to eye with. I guess I don't see how this would happen. If a (non-design background) client can make my design better, then I am obviously in the wrong profession. In my experience, usually when a client gets overengaged in the design process we get a mish-mash of design details from the most current design magazines, neighbor or family recommendations and 1st year arch undergrad nephews ideas.
Your 1/2 right about art collectors and people associated with the arts. They do tend to have a better eye when it comes to design but as the saying goes "a little bit of information can be very dangerous". They know and appreciate pretty but the other half of what we do is BUILD. I don't know how many times we've had clients ask us why we can defy the rules of physics.
simples, your old boss was a genius. Give yourself more credit. Do you really think you'll be able to teach your client what took you YEARS to learn in a couple of meetings. What we do is not easy and it's a learning process that last a lifetime.
14. continued...as long as I can bill them for it!
I don't think that building models and pushing boundaries is in conflict with getting paid well and paying employees well.
In most other professions, this is called r&d and there is a budget for it, just like there is a budget for marketing and paying the maids/cleaners to vacuum every night.
Some firms use competitions as a great way of fostering interest, challenging ideas, etc., even though they know it's unlikely they'll win. It's r&d and marketing, all combined.
Personally, I've found that this type of investment - showing people what you and your team is possible of - is fantastic for garnering interest and getting new clients. It's an investment.
So I guess the client thing is 'can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em'
a good client asks intelligent questions, is willing to admit that they were wrong, pushes you to do better, and understands the value of good design.
a good practice values it's employees, is willing to invest in their training and development, has good business skills (ie can write a contract that makes money), knows when to say no, and listens well.
dml - is it really that unrealistic to ask that a practice be smart, friendly, talented and open minded? (now it sounds more like a personal ad)
You guys are starting to bring me around with this 'client' thing. Although OldFogey's (admittedly rhetorical) 'delivering high value for your investment' schtick really makes my stomach churn (client rep. much, OF?)
It's kind of neat to think of a firm's work in those terms, and it's an interesting idea to check out someone's portfolio not just for the pictures, but for the client list too. Then imagining what the meetings were like, which elements were contentious, etc. The more I think about it, the more it seems like this could open up whole other inroads into a body of work, think Saarinen and IBM, Gehry and Guggenheim, etc. as an evolving client/architect relationship.
Maybe the whole list could be recast in those terms ... give me a minute.
Oh and I like #8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, too. Especially good coffee and good music. Keep 'em coming.
1. we have clients
2. they have a lot of money
3. they dont talk or have an opinion and trust us 2 do what we think is the best for them
4. they dont bring us architectural digest magazines to show us what they want
5. me + 3 more people can take all the work load
6. we leave at 6pm everyday
7. we do interesting stuff
8. the dog is wondering around the office
9. the office has a view to the ocean
10. the office is right next to my house
11. we work for 10 to 15 years max, and then we make enough to go and travel around and forget forever what is to deal with the contractors...
12. we dont accept extensivelly long CVs/portfolios from "fans-from-hell" interns that will love to work with us, and at the end they waste our time teaching them how to do stuff instead of them giving us solutions.
we haven't yet brought up that another 'ideal' firm might be the one that consists of a sole practitioner with a trust fund. if there's no burden to have revenue you can always do the projects you want - those that are interesting to you - and your whole output will consist of projects you wanted to do!
Yo MAD your 11 point discription is my office except we have a view of the mountains instead of the ocean, and we don't work on fridays except when there's a deadline. Its been that way for 5 years.
12. turn down work that doesn't interest us, creates a potential liablity, or doesn't allow us to grow.
The Ideal Architecture Firm: A Checklist
1) has academic chops
(Someone on board must be able to write about, speak about, defend, contextualize, and even critique their own work in an academic setting. This is architecture's version of peer review, and helps sort out (over much time and with much debate) the really new and interesting from the boring, the pointless, and the untrue. 'Criticism is a device for detecting false claims,' it takes a while and it's not a perfect process but it usually works. Architecture has, to its benefit, always been intimately connected with ideas, let's maintain that connection.)
2) does interesting work that's formally advanced and forward thinking
(No copiers or retreaders. 'No Historicists' goes without saying, but why do we put up with rip-off artists who only go five years back? This has nothing to do with pointless debates over who invented the grid or the minimal surface, this condition exists to exclude the set of corporate firms that make their living copying, sanitizing, and rehashing the formal experiments of others, and selling them to their only slightly adventurous clients. You Know Who You Are.)
3) recognizes and prioritizes energy efficiency at every stage of the building process
(This is just necessary in the 21st century. Even if we're not screwing up the weather with oil, we're sure screwing up global politics. All the arguments are elsewhere and not worth rehashing here, just do it. It doesn't have to be thematized, and if it were, it probably wouldn't survive the first or second test anyway. We need a new word for 'sustainability' (sustaining what, exactly?) but the principles are there, and they can be applied without falling into the dual traps of fake high-tech or neotrad nostalgia.)
4) recognizes and prioritizes social and economic justice
(Is your firm building falsley 'transparent' media headquarters for totalitarian state monopolies that subsist on censorship and human rights abuses? Is your construction crew a bunch of third world indentured servants, under the employ of bigoted sheiks who punish homosexuality with the death penalty? Cut that shit out. You should be ashamed of yourself. Does your building have an awkward relationship to the street? Take care of that, too.)
5) pays commensurate with experience and hard work
(Ever hear of May Day? Look it up, people fought and died for the 40 hour work week. My education and time in the profession was bought with Blood, Sweat, Tears, and Cash. I'll give some more of the first three to you if you give some of the fourth back to me. Please don't expect me to take part in the creation of a city that I can't afford to live in.)
6) has an open ended conception of what architecture is and can be
(Form is not everything, neither is your ego. Get over yourself and your limited idea of what sort of work is 'advancing the discourse'. Let a few other voices into the conversation, you might learn from them, and they might help you make something really cool and different. 'Formal Autonomy' and 'Disciplinary Specificity' are not excuses for acting like a jerk. Future art history texts may not remember which architects were nice people, but everyone you meet on a daily basis will.)
*In other words: be smart, make cool stuff, stay aware of the bigger picture and be nice to people. How hard is all that?
Maybe I could be clearer: I'm not talking about just your average firm here. And I'm not talking about pragmatics or compromise either. That's why there's that [i]ideal[/] up there in the thread title.
I'm trying to assemble what might be the basic critieria for a truly world class architecture firm. This is at least partly in response to the Philip Nobel ICA review: what would good work truly look like? What would it be like to participate in it's creation?
It's also, at least partly: Where do I want to work? Why does every firm out there fall short on at least one of these items?
I'm definitely not coming at this from the point of view of the client. The client is deliberately left out here in an attempt to isolate other variables. For the purposes of this discussion: Fuck the Client. Architects exist partly to educate clients, if we did exactly what was asked, do you think anything would ever change?
I'm not going to argue with the concept of defining an 'ideal firm'. But I think you are making a big mistake leaving clients out of it. Without any clients? #'s 2, 3, and 5 go right out the window (especially 5). With bad clients? you can toss #6 out the window too.
In my ideal firm, GREAT CLIENTS would be at or near the top of my list. Contrary to our usual experience, a good client can actually contribute to the process and make it better. They can give you a budget that allows you to make great things; or they can be tightwads that value engineer all the best ideas out of the project. They can encourage your creativity; or they can decide they don't want to go too far out on a limb.
Leaving the client out of the equation leaves the whole FIRM out of the equation.
Fogey, rationalist,
I agree with the fact that the client is important. But as far as I know, the IDEAl firm as to try to push forward a few things that are not totally related to clients. As you guys know, to get something that looks good and that seduce the client, you have to work on a lot of stuff that are not completely visible, both in terms of detailing, cost reduction, and architectural thinking I think. So yourname's ideal firm may be a bit idealistic, but you shouldn't try to hard to be too pragmatic either...
i'm with french. no extremes necessary in defining an ideal. fogey's maybe gone a little too far in making a point counter to yourname's questions.
this book is one that i've reread a couple of times because i'm interested in how it defines the professional ethics of architecture. in a nutshell, that the ethical architect is responsible to not only client but also to the general public/society, users (if distinct from client), and self. and responsible to these stakeholders not only in the present but in the future. if you use these markers in your definition of an ideal firm, you'll end up in a different place than either fogey or yourname.
I will second (or third?) the client thing. While some clients are a pain and it sometimes seems like it would be nice to operate in a vacuum. But then I have good clients, that push the design where I would have stopped, etc. It's a process (didn't they teach you that in school!? Seriously, if academia is important the process should be paramount).
The rest has already been said. I personally feel pretty strongly about theory. It's fun and inspiring but is useless anywhere outside of the minds of architecture students. Basically, it serves to keep architect an elitist field and keep theory professors employed (that can't/won't build).
I just think that a basic knowledge of this area is fine. Teach students about business, about professional options and possibly a tad about the politics of getting progressive things built.
I think it's all about balance. Too much academia and you are in a vacuum, or never moving beyond a paper architect (which I think is just fine, btw, but not ideal) too much pragmatism and you won't ever challenge what can be done.
My list:
1. A firm that attracts and retains great clients
2. Is run well, commands high pay and gets it
3. Pays well - prosper one, prosper all
4. Pushes boundaries through collaborative exploration (like open discussions on new markets, new technologies, etc., then small tests to test these theories)
5. Diversity - architecture, graphics, 3D, art, models, etc., are all used and experimented with.
6. Uncompromised design - this is the one everyone wants. I think the key to this success is 1. and 2. (theoretically, you can turn away clients that will not be part of a symbiotic process, or not pay well)
Think that's it...I'll be back once the coffee settles in
these are ideals because in reality they are desires in conflict. a firm that bills high and pays well is not spending time paying people to build models and push boundaries. that is because model building endless exploration is usually NOT billable time. that's why certain firms have unpaid and low paid students/interns working away. Clients aren't paying for fifty study models of the renovation of their house. unlike what we see in magazines and in books, all the fancy graphics and models end up being filed under the heading of marketing.
7. has good coffee
interesting comments here. I like to suscribe to the idea of never giving clients what they want; give them more than they could ever imagine.
A good project is only possible with a great client.
emaze/e, do you guys work in a marketing department?
i completely agree, but the aphorisms are flying out of control.
I really think the client is a Red Herring here. Not irrelevant, but tangential. I can't be clearer: I'm talking about exactly the 30 or so firms who don't have to worry about attracting clients. They're fighting clients off with a stick, in fact, and the clients who get through to them are among the most prominent government, business, and cultural institutions in the world. I'm determined not to name names with this but I think you can all imagine the kinds of practices I'm talking about.
The problem is this: as vado pointed out, these are desires in conflict.
Why does energy efficiency always seem to go hand in hand with formal retreads and an academic position that devolves into puritanistic moralisms? Why does the ability to pay your staff fairly, while still doing adventurous work, always seem to correlate with a bunch of projects in Asian and Gulf State pseudo-democracies? Why does formal innovation and academic cred always seem to accompany a belligerent attitude? Why do good business practices always seem to go along with weak and repetitive form?
Again, I'm resisting calling anyone out by name, but does any of the above seem familiar?
Again, pragmatics and compromise are beside the point, if this was a revolutionary manifesto, what would you think if someone said 'well sure, the pursuit of happiness is fine and all that, but what about kings? A good country is only possible with a great king!'
My ideal firm embodies a lot of the principles already mentioned, so I will not go on about them ad nauseam. However, one thing that I have decided is important in the way a firm is run is how the employees are treated and given responsibility. I like the idea of either no one having titles or everyone having titles......I think it's important to keep open lines of communication with employees......and I think it's important to have a firm-wide "sense of humor" but not to disrespect people. I guess I find myself thinking a lot about these types of management issues when they become problems in my own office :o/
Beyond that....an ideal architecture firm would fill their time with challenges! If there is ever down time, find new programs to learn or participate in competitions. An ideal firm is also always pushing the envelope of technology in the office (I know this is expensive but this is my ideal!).
And of course, MY ideal firm would produce only projects which renewed or sustained their environment.
you mean we're still waiting for a philosopher to become king?
i agree that the great client is a major part of the ideal firm. but i think its more than just the client... basically, the *ideal* firm is the people firm...
it has the best clients, best relationships with the best contractors, best consultants and collaborators, engineers, artists possibly, and has the best employees and leadership... it's *connected* internally and externally...
to be honest, i value somewhat alot of the things that yourname mentions above. we are talking about *ideal* firms here: progressive, open minded, socially minded, sustainable, etc... We're not talking *real*.
however, i think the list is missing the boat. all of those ideals in that list there are *values*. they are not the means... the means is the people that do the work. EVERY mofo firm has some grand bullshit values, blahblahblah... but it aint ideal if they are all talk and can't do anything... the ideal firm is the one that can make it happen... it's not an isolated heroic art, we need to realize that architects live in a market and in a real world social, working and business conditions... an industry... whether they obey the traditional territory of their own industry or not... you can impact the market, but you can't do that alone... it's business skills.
I agree with bRink, the key is to have the political and social skills to make all that happen, wether it's talking clients into doing something cool or what.
'the means is the people that do the work' -that's dope, and spot-on.
yourname,
those 30 firms exist not because of their manifesto but because of their people... there is a whole marketing and relations engine there, people actually working on things, and a process and delivery engine... way of working that actually gets stuff built... unless you're talking about purely conceptual firms that never actually build anything?
12. good music and good stereo
13. hula hoop team
I'll accept that. You didn't define that in your concept of an ideal firm, so I felt the need to define for MY ideal firm that it be one of those who gets/has great clients. If that's not one of the points, how can we know that it's an assumption? I got the impression from reading your bit that you were purposely not adknowledging the existence of/need for clients at all.
Since so many of you believe a good client is essential to have an ideal firm. What is a good client?
My experience has shown the only good clients we ever have in are office are the ones who are rich and to busy with their own lives to learn what we do and why we do it. These individuals are often very intellingent and know that they've hired professionals who will deliver a quality product. Period.
alfrejas- that sure does sound like a good client. The other sort of good client I can think of is the type that knows their building is a giant advertisement for their business and is willing to make an investment in something that says good things about them, and is generally more interested in it is a long-term investment and less as an immediate expense.
disagree, alfrejas, the best clients are the ones that are highly engaged with the project, but have a respect for your expertise as a designer. i've also found art collectors and people associated with the arts to be very good clients. they understand what goes into the product and have a sense of the value of good design. it's almost like dating. when you see eye-to-eye with the client and have a completely transparent relationship, good things often follow.
my old boss once told me, in reference to a specific client request, "fuck'em, they don't know what they want...they hired us because we know what they want"...almost all of his clients loved him and returned with more business...very soft spoken man, actually...oh, and ran a very lucrative successful design firm...
personally, i tend to listen to clients, and believe they are an essential element of good projects, but...
14. willing and eager to educate clients.
Now that I think about it I'm going to totally agree with yourname. I don't know how many times I've told my boss that our profession would be perfect if it wasn't for clients and contractors. Oh a boy can dream....
yeah, i'm a little leary on the "educate" the client thing...
i worked for a guy, felt that everyone that came into the office was a dunce, and needed to be taught everything relevant about arch history. would make all these absurd claims, like, " i never worked for kahn, but i feel like he was my mentor"
the best clients he had tended to walk away when they realized he was a pompous ass that just happened to have a little money and connections, and that was about it.
but i will agree that the better clients i've worked with were totally engaged in the project.
you dont want a client too engaged in the project, however....
GOOD CONSULTANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
umm yeah....jafidler I'm going to have to disagree with ya. I have yet to come across a client who I see eye to eye with. I guess I don't see how this would happen. If a (non-design background) client can make my design better, then I am obviously in the wrong profession. In my experience, usually when a client gets overengaged in the design process we get a mish-mash of design details from the most current design magazines, neighbor or family recommendations and 1st year arch undergrad nephews ideas.
Your 1/2 right about art collectors and people associated with the arts. They do tend to have a better eye when it comes to design but as the saying goes "a little bit of information can be very dangerous". They know and appreciate pretty but the other half of what we do is BUILD. I don't know how many times we've had clients ask us why we can defy the rules of physics.
simples, your old boss was a genius. Give yourself more credit. Do you really think you'll be able to teach your client what took you YEARS to learn in a couple of meetings. What we do is not easy and it's a learning process that last a lifetime.
14. continued...as long as I can bill them for it!
I don't think that building models and pushing boundaries is in conflict with getting paid well and paying employees well.
In most other professions, this is called r&d and there is a budget for it, just like there is a budget for marketing and paying the maids/cleaners to vacuum every night.
Some firms use competitions as a great way of fostering interest, challenging ideas, etc., even though they know it's unlikely they'll win. It's r&d and marketing, all combined.
Personally, I've found that this type of investment - showing people what you and your team is possible of - is fantastic for garnering interest and getting new clients. It's an investment.
So I guess the client thing is 'can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em'
a good client asks intelligent questions, is willing to admit that they were wrong, pushes you to do better, and understands the value of good design.
a good practice values it's employees, is willing to invest in their training and development, has good business skills (ie can write a contract that makes money), knows when to say no, and listens well.
(And has good coffee)
fogey are you kidding me? they have columns in their designs.
yikes. and the riverfront apts. are very clark|menefee meets aldo rossi.
it's a little pomo, of, but i don't doubt that it would be a good office to work in;)
Some of the work wasn't bad. But what I do like about them is under "Studio" they list all their employees not just the principles.
im kidding of course. reminds me of the stuff done here.
good coffee is key. no one can (or should) work without good coffee.
The title of this thread needs to be edited to "The Fantasy Architecture Firm: A Checklist"
dml - is it really that unrealistic to ask that a practice be smart, friendly, talented and open minded? (now it sounds more like a personal ad)
You guys are starting to bring me around with this 'client' thing. Although OldFogey's (admittedly rhetorical) 'delivering high value for your investment' schtick really makes my stomach churn (client rep. much, OF?)
It's kind of neat to think of a firm's work in those terms, and it's an interesting idea to check out someone's portfolio not just for the pictures, but for the client list too. Then imagining what the meetings were like, which elements were contentious, etc. The more I think about it, the more it seems like this could open up whole other inroads into a body of work, think Saarinen and IBM, Gehry and Guggenheim, etc. as an evolving client/architect relationship.
Maybe the whole list could be recast in those terms ... give me a minute.
Oh and I like #8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, too. Especially good coffee and good music. Keep 'em coming.
1. we have clients
2. they have a lot of money
3. they dont talk or have an opinion and trust us 2 do what we think is the best for them
4. they dont bring us architectural digest magazines to show us what they want
5. me + 3 more people can take all the work load
6. we leave at 6pm everyday
7. we do interesting stuff
8. the dog is wondering around the office
9. the office has a view to the ocean
10. the office is right next to my house
11. we work for 10 to 15 years max, and then we make enough to go and travel around and forget forever what is to deal with the contractors...
appropriate MuSiC for this thread...
Yo MAD, you hiring? My CV's in the mail. You want the 2 meg version or the 10 megs?
12. we dont accept extensivelly long CVs/portfolios from "fans-from-hell" interns that will love to work with us, and at the end they waste our time teaching them how to do stuff instead of them giving us solutions.
but u might want to try here 765:
IDEAL office
damn, that was arrogant.
as if:
a) I was an intern
b) I was a fan when I don't even know who the hell you are
c) I wasn't making a joke in the first place
damn, that was taken too personal...
as if:
a) this thread was serious
b) my office was actually as i listed
c) im also making a joke
...ok ok 765 send me the 10 giga portfolio then....
;)
Okay, okay, I realized that after I hit the 'submit' button.
Cool? Cool.
:)
we haven't yet brought up that another 'ideal' firm might be the one that consists of a sole practitioner with a trust fund. if there's no burden to have revenue you can always do the projects you want - those that are interesting to you - and your whole output will consist of projects you wanted to do!
what is a pearl jam?
i aspired more to temple of the dog.
Yo MAD your 11 point discription is my office except we have a view of the mountains instead of the ocean, and we don't work on fridays except when there's a deadline. Its been that way for 5 years.
12. turn down work that doesn't interest us, creates a potential liablity, or doesn't allow us to grow.
13. don't take work on just for cashflow reasons.
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.