would you be offended because you were not consulted to make the changes?
Case in point, a well-known architect has had at least two of his projects added on to or modified in some other way without being asked to participate in the design process at all. I would like to know if this has happened to any of you, and if it did, how you felt about it. Was it no big deal, or was it the ultimate "diss"...?
well you're, of course, talking about the high museum - at least one of the projects you're addressing. i don't think it should be taken as a 'dis' at all, especially in the case of a museum.
museums collect art...or architecture. the high already had a meier, now they have a piano too. there would be no sale-able/marketable ADDED EXCITEMENT in simply adding more meier to the meier.
.870. it is only worse if theydemolish your building down without first asking your permission....or at least letting you know they are going to demolish your building, so you can get a good set of photos of it before it is history. This has happened to famous architects, where the owner of the building was remiss about notifying the architect of their plans.
snooker - surely that's the architect's fault for not photographing the building sooner? Allow me to use the analogy of a tailor (for that is really all we architects are): Would you buy a tailored suit and then consult the tailor before throwing it out? Would you expect them to turn up at your door demanding an explanation as to why you got a new lining on the jacket?
Generally speaking, we get hired to design a building and supervise it's construction. We coordinate the spending of the client's money - not ours. If we're lucky we can make the jump from 'being grateful for the opportunity to design something that isn't ours' to 'being sought after to give added value to construction projects'. I think it's a bit much to see a project as a type of architect-based philanthropy. We provide a service and get paid for it. Once we can afford to finance the construction of a building, then we have rights over what happens to it.
the NYT interview mentioned in the article discussed meier's amicable view of the addition and renzo...so, in this particular case, it was not a "diss"...
generally speaking though, it would depend on the nature of the original project, nature of the addition, client relationship, and how famous the original architect is/was...
architects design additions/renovations to existing buildings all the time, and there is usually no effort to contact the original architect. Most of the time, there is an effort to respect and preserve the qualities of the original building, but that's about it;
one of our interior designers made changes to the douglas house by rm a few years back. i think he said he called rm to get the okay since the owners were being blinded and all their stuff was fadin'.
chch: I still find it a slap in the face to our profession that at least the owner of the building would not contact the architect and let them know they plan on demolishing a building prior to doing so.
The story I heard first hand had to deal with an Architect who had designed a what he had considered his finest house and he had designed a many which had been published. So one day he is
taking a friend to do a drive by visit of the house and when he rounds the corner and it is gone only to be replaced by developers
vision of architecture.
"...A house in Hermosa Beach, Calif, which is clad in zinc-coated stainless steel and concrete board, was designed in the 1980s by the architectural firm Morphosis and recently renovated by another firm, Daly Genik..."
call me cynical and jaded but i have come to the conclusion that as long as we get great fotos of the project as soon as its finished (with furniture of our choice put in temp. just for the foto shot) then whatever happens next its pretty irrelevant. good fotos last forever, demolition - fine...
Honestly I would honoured if the asked my opinion about who did the redesign - obviously if they chose me they have enough sense to choose someone talented for the addition. If they didn't I still wouldn't be offended.
If however, the person who designed the addition decided to go in a less than appropriate direction aesthetically I would be insulted and potentially outraged but its at that point when I wouldn't be able to express myself because they would feel it was out of jealousy rather than consutructive criticism...worse they would only be partly right!
J. I was wondering about that myself. It wouldn't have been hard to call RM up and ask him to do an addition, but if working with him was a headache, then I can't fault them for consulting with someone else. And, when they got Mr. Piano, they now have a two-for-one celebrity architect deal. :)
Personally, I would be a little upset if someone wanted to make radical changes to my building without calling me in to advise-but there's really not too much you can do. It's not your building (even though you designed it) and if the client wants to pay someone else to tinker with your creation it's their business.
Well, one could always make an unexpected stop at the former client's house to have a little talk late one night...
architects can be so silly sometimes...as if it was really their building
personally, i'd be more annoyed if i paid for the building and it was then torn down without my consultation...and believe it or not, this sort of thing has happened on college campuses, for example, where the descendents of one family are apalled by the demolition of their namesake building in favor of a newer building by some nouveau riche donor.
I wouldn't be offended, that's life. I think I would enjoy the notion of another layer by another architect. If I were doing an addition to a worthy building, I might have a conference with the original architect, but that's it. If the owner wanted that same architect, they would have hired him.
all we can hope as architects is that any addition to a building would be done sensibly, and therefore we should be sensible when adding to any buildings. Re. the wrecking ball, unless you own the building, or you feel the building if of historical value (probably not your design then), c'est la vie...and i think there is an interesting link in a lot of the posts here re. the connection of client relationships and the long term relationship of the architect and the building...
Actually now that I think about it it was "free free set them free" and It was an old girlfriend in 2nd year architecture school... but that's another thread.
When another architect modifies your existing building...
would you be offended because you were not consulted to make the changes?
Case in point, a well-known architect has had at least two of his projects added on to or modified in some other way without being asked to participate in the design process at all. I would like to know if this has happened to any of you, and if it did, how you felt about it. Was it no big deal, or was it the ultimate "diss"...?
well you're, of course, talking about the high museum - at least one of the projects you're addressing. i don't think it should be taken as a 'dis' at all, especially in the case of a museum.
museums collect art...or architecture. the high already had a meier, now they have a piano too. there would be no sale-able/marketable ADDED EXCITEMENT in simply adding more meier to the meier.
.870. it is only worse if theydemolish your building down without first asking your permission....or at least letting you know they are going to demolish your building, so you can get a good set of photos of it before it is history. This has happened to famous architects, where the owner of the building was remiss about notifying the architect of their plans.
snooker - surely that's the architect's fault for not photographing the building sooner? Allow me to use the analogy of a tailor (for that is really all we architects are): Would you buy a tailored suit and then consult the tailor before throwing it out? Would you expect them to turn up at your door demanding an explanation as to why you got a new lining on the jacket?
Generally speaking, we get hired to design a building and supervise it's construction. We coordinate the spending of the client's money - not ours. If we're lucky we can make the jump from 'being grateful for the opportunity to design something that isn't ours' to 'being sought after to give added value to construction projects'. I think it's a bit much to see a project as a type of architect-based philanthropy. We provide a service and get paid for it. Once we can afford to finance the construction of a building, then we have rights over what happens to it.
previously, on archinect:
http://archinect.com/news/article.php?id=27607_0_24_0_C
the NYT interview mentioned in the article discussed meier's amicable view of the addition and renzo...so, in this particular case, it was not a "diss"...
generally speaking though, it would depend on the nature of the original project, nature of the addition, client relationship, and how famous the original architect is/was...
architects design additions/renovations to existing buildings all the time, and there is usually no effort to contact the original architect. Most of the time, there is an effort to respect and preserve the qualities of the original building, but that's about it;
one of our interior designers made changes to the douglas house by rm a few years back. i think he said he called rm to get the okay since the owners were being blinded and all their stuff was fadin'.
chch: I still find it a slap in the face to our profession that at least the owner of the building would not contact the architect and let them know they plan on demolishing a building prior to doing so.
The story I heard first hand had to deal with an Architect who had designed a what he had considered his finest house and he had designed a many which had been published. So one day he is
taking a friend to do a drive by visit of the house and when he rounds the corner and it is gone only to be replaced by developers
vision of architecture.
"...A house in Hermosa Beach, Calif, which is clad in zinc-coated stainless steel and concrete board, was designed in the 1980s by the architectural firm Morphosis and recently renovated by another firm, Daly Genik..."
see the SLIDE SHOW via the NYT
call me cynical and jaded but i have come to the conclusion that as long as we get great fotos of the project as soon as its finished (with furniture of our choice put in temp. just for the foto shot) then whatever happens next its pretty irrelevant. good fotos last forever, demolition - fine...
ha....
No, I have no ownership rights.
Honestly I would honoured if the asked my opinion about who did the redesign - obviously if they chose me they have enough sense to choose someone talented for the addition. If they didn't I still wouldn't be offended.
If however, the person who designed the addition decided to go in a less than appropriate direction aesthetically I would be insulted and potentially outraged but its at that point when I wouldn't be able to express myself because they would feel it was out of jealousy rather than consutructive criticism...worse they would only be partly right!
J. I was wondering about that myself. It wouldn't have been hard to call RM up and ask him to do an addition, but if working with him was a headache, then I can't fault them for consulting with someone else. And, when they got Mr. Piano, they now have a two-for-one celebrity architect deal. :)
Personally, I would be a little upset if someone wanted to make radical changes to my building without calling me in to advise-but there's really not too much you can do. It's not your building (even though you designed it) and if the client wants to pay someone else to tinker with your creation it's their business.
Well, one could always make an unexpected stop at the former client's house to have a little talk late one night...
architects can be so silly sometimes...as if it was really their building
personally, i'd be more annoyed if i paid for the building and it was then torn down without my consultation...and believe it or not, this sort of thing has happened on college campuses, for example, where the descendents of one family are apalled by the demolition of their namesake building in favor of a newer building by some nouveau riche donor.
think of your buildings like former lovers and as the song says...
you can't keep track of each fallen robin.
just go howard roark on them and demolish it.
I wouldn't be offended, that's life. I think I would enjoy the notion of another layer by another architect. If I were doing an addition to a worthy building, I might have a conference with the original architect, but that's it. If the owner wanted that same architect, they would have hired him.
What if the architect died ?
What if your not that much good and some one came with better ideas?
Off course I wouldn’t mind and I will be glade for that
But what already happened with me and made me made that some one modified on my work
Then it’s become in his name
vado...now i have a craving for leonard cohen!
all we can hope as architects is that any addition to a building would be done sensibly, and therefore we should be sensible when adding to any buildings. Re. the wrecking ball, unless you own the building, or you feel the building if of historical value (probably not your design then), c'est la vie...and i think there is an interesting link in a lot of the posts here re. the connection of client relationships and the long term relationship of the architect and the building...
Vado ... I think Sting covered it with ..."if you love them let them free"!
Actually now that I think about it it was "free free set them free" and It was an old girlfriend in 2nd year architecture school... but that's another thread.
If you love them tie them up and keep 'em in your basement.
Where are the before pictures of the house in
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/06/29/magazine/20070701_STYLE_SLIDESHOW_2.html
Both Daly & Genik were teaching at USC when I was there.
Chris Genik made their students build a resin model of the freeway system. It cost the studio about $2,000 to make and it looked like %$.
They also idolized Morphosis and now teach at SCI-Arc.
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.