I'll play devil's advocate to your important thesis and inject that architects need to guard against the tendency to let pure design trump other legitimate issues. I know -- they are dedicated to resisting this temptation. But. . .

The rampant bad-mouthing that architects endure, usually behind their backs, may have its origin in this very occasional tendency -- which of course does not in any way excuse the kinds of unethical and destructive behavior you cite !

dont be afraid to tell someone to fuck off

IMHO, these sorts of issues typically arise over different perspectives about the project - we tend to view the work as an "architectural" project, while most of the other members of the team - including most owners - see the work as a "building" project. This is a clash of values that allows everybody to be an expert of sorts.

Dealing with such differences starts - and stops - with two elements: a) our relationship with the owner, and his minions when the owner is bureaucratic; and b) our ability to provide leadership to the process.

No army ever captured a difficult hill without first having a general (i.e. the owner) define the objective and a crazy platoon leader (i.e. the architect) lead the troops against withering fire.

However, in the real world of contemporary building, being an a**hole doesn't make you an effective leader - it just makes you an a**hole. Leadership comes from other sources.

We recently had a meeting in our office with all the major players on the team, including the consultants, owner, and contractor. The project was in late CD phase. On the agenda was including a lighting consultant firm in the process to do the exterior site lighting. I was new to the firm and the project and didn't even know who was who, I was just there to take notes for my boss on vacation.

The lighting consultant was basicly ripping the design of the whole project, the site plan, the architecture, everything. I was surprised that anyone would entertain that discussion at this phase but these guys went on for like 2 hours and the owners indulged them. Finally the contractor said we were already behind schedule and budget and even thought the ideas were good, we needed to move on. I finally gave up and just left the meeting and went back to my desk.

I couldn't believe that the lighting firm would go into an architects office and badmouth us in front of everyone. What could they possibly have to gain. They could have built a relationship with our firm instead and possibly gotten lots of business from us.

When I saw their proposed lighting package a month later I just laughed to myself. It was basicly a few sketches that probably took someone a n hour to design and draw. All the grandiose things they talked about ended up just being a few mundane can lights and bollards, something a manufacturer would have done for free. I felt like turning the tables and telling the owner that he had been ripped off, but I held my tongue, it just wasn't a battle I wanted to fight. Maybe if I was in a position of trust with the owner hehe, but in the end I'm glad I just stayed out of it.

The word design means many things each unique to the party designing

I'd be interested in hearing how people have been successful in holding their ground and maintaining the integrity of the project. I have lots of examples of various people, engineers, owner's reps, contractors, etc, hijacking a project. Anyone have positive experiences?

quizzical made a few important points above...but just to add...

i personally believe that one of the, if not THE key aspect to design is recognizing what information/input is crucial to the project at hand, and how you incorporate such information into the design process...if you work under that directive, and communicate accordingly, things tend to go much easier...

I think there is great danger in thinking about the project as "our" project. We don't own the land; we don't pay the bills; we don't put up the equity; we don't guarantee the loan. We simply are a member of the team.

Our role on that team is established by the owner. Our influence on that team is established by our knowledge, our credibility, our ability to hear what others have to say, and our skill in leading an unruly group.

IMHO, architects frequently are poor leaders - we want what we want and we get pissed when everybody else doesn't immediately see the genuis of our ideas.

The real world of project delivery is messy, dynamic and political. It's not at all like school, where you can spend months working in solitude to craft a perfect design. We are part of a multidisciplinary process that requires give and take. How much we give and how much we have to take depends on our ability to persuade and lead. That is not a condition that can be conveyed in a few key suggestions. There is no 'easy button' - you have to work at it over a lifetime

Amen, brother.

Hmm.. it seems this discussion may be taking a strange turn, even architects are not standing up for architects. Look, in the scenario's I am presenting, I am talking about situations when consultants -or- architects of record, etc are clearly attempting to TAKE CONTROL of the project from the architect. Often, this may happen BEFORE contracts are signed, so it can become a difficult situation to deal with.

Of course there is no 'easy button' but some anecdotes in the line of Robert Greene's book "48 Laws of Power" might be interesting to hear.

And BTW, I am taking for granted that we are talking about a project that is ABOUT DESIGN. Sorry but some owners actually want a well designed (cool looking whatever) building. And its not a well designed building if it doesn't do the pragmatic work that a building must do, its a sculpture that failed as a building. So please lets not get into a discussion about myopic designers that don't care if the plumbing works, honestly I don't think that any/many architects that get to the point of having a $30M budget on a big project are foolish enough to wanna skip over MEP because it ain't sexy. Its a waste of breath to build such improbable straw men to topple.

And quizzical.. oft citing 'leadership' as the key.. but leadership is really a collection of tactics and tools of persuasion, and in the case of the architect, there are specialized situations where a certain type of persuasion are needed - sometimes harsh, sometimes agreeable. It would be interesting to hear how some of your principles handle these situations..

As well, if I recall the contract documents, architect does have final say over aesthetic matters on a project, so sure, we are a member of a team, but also an appointed leader.

Well said, and noted.

Of course, principals should always hold to their principles !

...and then let let their staff defend them so they dont have to look the client in the eye when defending their wet dreams for them!!

It sounds like you are really talking personal politics here. You want to know what to do when an engineer trys to bad mouth the architect so that he can get his buddy to be the architect, right? This is not just an issue that architects face, it happens all the time to everybody. Architects are out there badmouthing contractors to get their buddy contractor in on the job too.

So when you see this coming, what do you do? You need to be very skillful at reading people and situations. This is not easy, because people who are good at being slimy are also good at hiding it. My best advice to you is to make friends with everyone you can. If you see that the engineer is trying to shove you out of the project, you need to sit down with him alone, and have an honest discussion about it. You need to know where you sit in the pecking order for this to be effective. If you are the owners pal, then you can pretty much let the engineer know that if he does not support the team effort, you will make sure he gets off the team. However, if he is the owners best bud, then you better suck up to him, tell him you value his opinion, you want to work with him to establish a good relationship in the future, etc. and then continue to watch your back.

There are still going to be times you get shoved out the door because of some relationship someone has with the decision maker. Just suck it up and move on, and remember there will probably also be a time when you are brought into a project as another architect is shoved out for the same reason. It is always about building relationships.

OldFogey:

good points here. I agree with the criticism of Greene's book.. after a while it leaves a bad taste and he speaks with some kind of sense of authority on some rather subjective topics.. BUT I still would be interested in architectural versions of those historical stories he writes.

BTW, good try with the detective work, but I still have the project and the offending fellow is gone, He threw out some really strange ideas early in the process and I called them all out and suggested to owner that might be best to find someone else.. So I took a direct and frontal route its something I rarely do, but in this case I thought it was worth risking the project over. Offending fellow is now very offended!!

I agree with your assessment of power being based on cultivating positive relationships. Some people though, I don't want positive relationships with!!

Why is it so hard to believe that there are in fact some qualified architects whose efforts are sabotaged by lazy engineers and/or contractors?

We're talking about consultants and GC's who have stepped beyond their roles in an unprofessional way. I'm looking for specific examples of how architects have successfully resisted this.

Any succesful architect has to have many skills. You must be creative, yet also have good technical knowledge .You also have to really be able to convince others on your decisions. If any of these skills are lacking then you will not be succesfull alone. A good architecture firm should either have a good strong leader with all of these skills, or a good team of complimentary players that can work together to fill those rolls.

Becoming an arrogant A*hole will not in the lng run help you be succesfull. Even if you have the creative skills of a Frank Lloyd Wright you have to be able to convince clients that your designs are buildable and in budget. FLW is a great example in how not to run a business, he was quite often in financial trouble and made lots of enemies out of his clients.

OlFogey is right, try and hire good consultants and contractors that can help you as a designer to fullfill yours and your clients wishes. There is no reason to have an adverse relationship with any of these people, aren't you all working towards the same goal? A great looking, funtional building and a profit for everyone.

Know your contract.

FLW may be a great example of how not to run a business, but who's the one architect that the majority of Americans can name?

Architects who make art (as opposed to regular old buildings) are often temperamental, and often bad businesspeople. And then, later in life, because they pursued their vision at all costs, they find that they make money and gain status. But these guys are rareties: most of us will never have the arrogance or stubbornness (or talent) of a Frank Lloyd Wright.

While Wright was certainly an arrogant egotist and a self-indulgent businessman, he had good relations with the great majority of his clients, and they were the one category of persons in his life whom he might be said to have indulged. Though he sometimes sought to override a client's wishes, he was reported by many of them to be quite willing to see that their wishes were fully met. Moreover, several of the better-heeled clients willingly gathered to secure him against financial straits at the darkest period of his career. Wright was fond of his clients; after all, they had the excellent good sense to choose him as their architect !