While I don't know what you're talking about, I did learn last year that 'cretin' comes from 'christian' and I think that's hilarious.

That's all.

What can be done to improve the situation? Respect your clients: they pay your mortgage. What the ^$#* more motivation do you need?

I've worked 12-hour shifts in a factory and trust me, being paid to do something even remotely creative beats that by a landslide.

Respect is a two-way street; there are many clients who don't respect architects, despite having hired them. It is difficult to provide good service to someone who continually asks your professional opinion, for which he is paying, only to choose to disregard it entirely and even in some cases flaunt this fact in front of you, the expert, so that he can feel like the man in power. It takes a very high level of professionalism to deal calmly and patiently with this sort of frequent treatment and still keep on pushing for the things that you know will make the building pleasing to its users. For the vast majority of us, this is a daily reality and frankly I think we all deserve a huge round of applause for the professionalism we exhibit in dealing with these kinds of clients daily--practitioners in other professions do not put up with the level of unprofessionalism amongst clients that we do.

The reason you see so much venting and even abusing of clients on this board is exactly because of our high professionalism--this anonymous internet site is a haven amongst friends, a place where you can let off the steam you are forced to suck in and bottle up all day long precisely in order to provide a high level of caring, patient service to disrespectful clients. Therefore I do not have a problem with those kinds of posts as I trust that it is probably healthy venting of a problem we are all too professional to confront in the workplace itself.

My belief is that a client's disrespect for architects is partly due to a disregard for the value of architecture, a doubting of the worth of our very existence, which leads clients to come to the beginning of the architect-client relationship already predisposed to believe we are nothing more than a legal nuisance. I believe strongly that a vast marketing campaign and educational campaign on the part of the AIA would help this matter and would be willing to give money to such a cause.

good projects only come from good clients...

To most clients, architects are a necessary evil. If I was hiring someone to build my home or business I would be quite displeased if they designed it to their design criteria while ignoring my wishes as a client. Clients try and hire firms with a good reputation with creative ideas, but most have a pretty good sense as to what needs to be built. If I am a business owner with lots of experience, I am not going to give anyone so much control over one of the most expensive capitol investments (a building) without me at least having a say in what gets built.

Bad clients should pay the penalty for making wrong decisions or for being abusive. Good firms won't want to work with bad developers. So they will be forced to seek out less qualified or at least more expensive architects.

So I think It is nice to have a place like this forum to vent about the bad clients and ask advice on how to deal with them. I know where you are coming from Quizzical and understand strongly how important it is to have a good client/architect relationship.

while it's important to have places like archinect where we can vent about our frustrations, i agree with quizzical that this particular issue is taking on a life of its own here. we routinely bash clients, the users of our buildings and the citizenry in general because they don't bow down to the gods of architecture. more and more, we tend to characterize our "customers and constituency" as having become "the enemy"

however, while we can commiserate here, we still have to practice in the real world. i like the idea that we might use this forum to discuss and debate strategies that will help us turn this around. it's not the AIA's problem alone - we are the AIA (even if we're not members) because we make up the profession.

i read somewhere on another thread a post that suggests architects are poor at selling their ideas - i think that's true and i think that's one of the primary reasons we're not respected.

we can design it - we just can't sell it! and then, we blame the client or the user because we think them too "stupid" to understand what we're trying to do for them.

that's a bad formula for successful public relations.

i am often amazed by the excessive client bashing on this site. i can only think of two, maybe three, instances where my client and i have not been able to find common ground, and even then we ended things respectfully and move on.

that is "moved on"

don't forget: we often bash architects as well!

we'll bash anybody!

vado, wanna bash?

time to bash what the stars are wearing tonite!

Bashing clients is a form of venting. Just don't name names.

Discussing politics to no end, well, that belongs elsewhere. I wish I could turn off all the politics threads (no I did not mean "political threads").

There's no stoppin' the cretins from hoppin'
You gotta keep it beatin'
For all the hoppin' cretins

This quote, taken directly from the Scogin-Elam thread about the Buckhead Library, illustrates clearly what quizzical's talking about:

"This story is a shame. If anything though, its a good look at the devide between what the public wants, and what we (designers) think they should want.

I spent the last 3 years studying architecture in a Scogin/Elam building and it was a very interesting experience. Not the warmest building, and is usually only interested in entertaining those who pay attention to it. Because that doesn't include most people, im not surprised most dont have a problem getting rid of it. psh, the collective...geez"

Public attitudes generally don't reflect what's important to us, as architects. Those attitudes aren't going to change on their own - we, as a profession, must embark on a long-term and sustainable program to help the public understand why so called "good architecture" is in their best interests.

The public's not going to get it on their own. We must help them. But, treating the pubic as though they are stupid or insensitive never got anybody anywhere.

I like this quote, taken from the "terrible studio experience" thread:

"I came from construction and was all nervous if I would fit in [at college], be smart enough to hang with the crowd - on my first day someone designed a cake, and another guy gave a speech about how the woods are the only true building we're meant to inhabit and I knew right there and then why our profesion is looked at like a bunch of retards on a field trip to the zoo."

You think maybe some of us might have a little difficulty relating to the real world and real people?

Architects, like many creative professionals, can recognize the advantage of selling themselves to their clients, in preparation to selling their work. A client will go a long way with you if they have "bought" you -- if they are invested in you as their chosen service provider.

I worked for a couple of artist-manufacturers early on. A friend was present at an important presentation for a potential client. I was told that they acted as if the sample would "sell itself" to the client -- which it didn't. A certain amount of charm, and some self-promotion, are necessary to "get the job," and to keep the client on your side.

if only architecture wasn't so damn ARBITRARY...

: can't quite tell if you're being tongue-in-cheek there, but in case you're not, you put your finger on what I believe to be a key aspect of the problem ... we do tend to see our work as somewhat subjective and blown by the whims of fashion and taste ... our clients, who may be putting a huge amount of money and personal reputation at risk, generally are looking for solutions that are reliable and predictable ... and, dare I say it ... conservative. it's fine to be daring when buying a new dress or a new pair of shoes -- it's not quite so easy to be daring when you're spending hundreds of thousands (or maybe many millions) of dollars.

the challenge for us, IMHO, is to find ways to bridge that gap. the responsibility is squarely on us to give our clients enough confidence to trust our judgments - the client base has no incentive whatsoever to work on this problem themselves.

if a client wants a functional, yet unispiring building in time and on budget, there are plenty of architects out there who can accommodate. likewise, if he wants a beautiful piece of art, that will come in over budget and six months late, he can find that too. it's up to the client to know who he is hiring and what he should expect out of that architect. no client is right for every architect and no architect is right for every client. i think that the problem we have is that often for economic reasons, we pretend that that is not true.

in any case, making sweeping statements about the downfall of the profession is less than productive as is likening our profession to "a bunch of retards on a field trip to the zoo."

People who engage architects (for the most part) love architecture, that's why they meddle. The do respect you but they want some of the "fun" and not be the mere cheque book to your (accept it) arbitrary design.

Want a non-meddling client? find one who is not into architecture!

Now imaging the oft called for "architecturally educated public"... *shivers*

: "People who engage architects (for the most part) love architecture, that's why they meddle."

I suppose that's true in some cases. However, I've often found that many well-informed and experienced clients want to be very deeply involved - whether they care about the "architecture" or not.

This is especially true when the client is a specialist in a project type (such as a residential, retail or office developer) and the design firm they're using assigns relatively junior and/or inexperienced staff to the project.

In such cases, the client rep. very well may know a great deal more about designing and building the project than most of the project team. These conditions often will lead the design team to feel they're being dictated to and their recommendations ignored.

Well, somehow Fallingwater got built as Wright intended despite a very involved client, who suggested detail and who questioned engineering. He (the client) even improved on Wright (with his thanks) in suggesting the frameless glass/stone interface and the fireplace stone eruption, which Wright had apparently intended to shave flush with the surrounding slate. . .

our practice celebrates clients who want to be deeply involved - they (usually) make the process fun and, in most cases, help us produce a better final product.

if your goal is having satisfied clients and users, how could you ever look at this any other way?

but, it does put a big burden on selecting the right clients. when you need work, it's hard to walk away from a client who you know just isn't the right fit, but we've learned to do it.

Imagine working the customer service counter in the most upscale mall in America, now imagine the very worst customer in the history of your career working that counter coming up to you and never, ever leaving. Always complaining, never satisfied, refuses to pay what they owe and have an attitude and ego bigger than Orion's Belt. Now you have a very good idea what its like to work my job as a construction assistant in New York.

We depend on these people for our very lively hood, but it seems for every good client you get, that pays on time, respects your knowledge and skill and values you as a professional, you get 20 clients from hell whose sole goal in life is to tell you how much you suck and there's nothing you can do about it because you rank at the very bottom in your company.