neck deep in city council approval meetings one of the board members took it upon herself to tell us that she has 'never seen a modern building she doesnt think is ugly'. and furthers the statement explaining that she really enjoys craftsman aesthetic. hmm..craftsman, yeah.
oh wait, this is in conversation about our 800mil dollar mixed use development (1.2 million of f@#$@# office) how would you handle this. She now, outside of the public process, wants us to email her images of buildings to 'convince' her of beauty found in modern architecture.
I'd send images of elegent contemporary buildings demonstrating a high level of massing and facade articulation. For many people, the term "Modern" is synonymous with dumb glass box tower, and the failure to unpack this adjective and discover what people really object to is the key.
By the way, architectural design is merely one in a whole series of forces playing a part in the production of the built environment. Politics, as we see here, is another component just as important, like it or not. Part of our job is intelligent and friendly persuasion.
she's set up a goose chase for you because she's in control of all the rules. you don't know a baseline of what she likes from which to start. craftsman ain't modern and craftsman-like modern ain't craftsman.
she's set you up to fail, especially if you only get to show her pictures.
now, if you could arrange to tour her through some projects by miller/hull or bohlin cywinski jackson or OSKA, you might have a chance, but then that might set you up for other problems of having to somehow match what they do.
yes i think the key is showing delicacy in facade treatment. It's tough though because our buildings are low rise (6-8flr) and I cant say that ive seen a beautiful low rise office building in person. Maybe 'beautiful isnt the right word' but they seem to only show themselves in magazine spreads.
or we'll just send her a stack of shiny dildos.
technically i think that'd be illegal (architect/planning commission meeting outside of public process). -but yes i agree. i think, being a planning commission board member (in a nearby seattle city), she would know of such work.
The Board member is not imbued with authority to reject something just because she doesn't like it's aesthetics, right? Where is it codified in the planning approval process that buildings are required to be 'craftsman style or similar"? I call bullshit.
*However* Since we architects want to help educate the populace to be better consumers of quality design, it can't hurt to reach out to her, AFTER your project is either approved or not on its own merits.
Rather than bombard her with images, send her (or better, meet with her - after your project is dealt with it won't be considered favoritism or conflict of interest any longer) and show her a couple of lovely Craftsman projects, and explain what makes Craftsman style distinguishable and good. Then show her a few good Modern projects, and explain, in relationship to the Craftsman, how elements of balance, harmony, proportion etc. are dealt with differently but still skillfully in both.
You're not going to convince her. But your role isn't to convince her that modern is good—it's to convince her that her stylistic opinion isn't the only one that matters.
I've found with many traditionalists that they somehow think anyone who supports modern work is a freak, a one-off, and that the vast majority share the view that all modern architecture stinks.
You could go a long way toward opening her mind if you could demonstrate that other American communities have allowed good modern work to happen, and that there are a variety of opinions at work.
Convincing her that modern is good will be near-impossible in the time you have. But convincing her that a plurality of opinions is good might be an easier task -- it's built into American democracy, after all. And she was elected.
lb that's a great idea... kind of ease her into the zeitgiest ... and for most projects it seems good craftsman would be prohibitively expensive (because the economic structure that produced it no longer exists) and even if you designed it, the vendors & contractors are still going to deliver 'craftsman-like modern' as Stephen called it.
I'm a little sheepish to admit I have the same difficulty with my own family even, and haven't made progress
In a project of that scale more important issues come to mind:
Social
Economic
Political
Spatial
Historical
Cultural
Functional
The little girl board member is try to make you think she has some understanding of architecture. If she thinks the success of such a project rests on the aesthetic and her view of architecture is limited to the 'craftsman aesthetic' you could be in trouble.
The problem with the uneducated like her is that they want all buildings to resemble the house they grew up in as a child. Maybe you could tease out of her the typology she grew up in, then interpret this in an eight storey office block (Frilly curtains on all windows a must, and a red front door). It will probably look hidious but she'll be overjoyed.
Having dealt with women in power positions I can also attest to their stubbornness and general desire to dictate for no apparent reason other than to stamp authority, possibly as a result of that rather large chip on the shoulder.
In her defence, with her limited perspective on architecture she probably has a perception of modernism as those 60's concrete tower blocks, so in her own reality she is correct, they were hidious.
Anyway I thought we were all past modernism and now embracing Decon??
"The problem with the uneducated like her is that they want all buildings to resemble the house they grew up in as a child."
I think it not helpful to think of our clients as uneducated ... often, they're way better educated than are we -- just in different disciplines.
You never win an argument or a debate when you assume the person on the other side of the issue is a) ignorant, b) uneducated, or c) less refined than you. Everybody has the right to their own taste and opinions -- when we approach our clients and patrons as less sophisticated than ourselves and expect them to bow down to us because we're the "experts" we're going to come across as elitist and arrogant -- and we're going to lose.
My advice -- avoid discussion of aesthetics altogether -- focus on functionality and what you can be built for the budget provided and within the time frame established by the client. Unless you've already got the client's trust on matters of aesthetics, you're not ever going to bring her around to your point of view on this project -- unless you're one true silver-tongued devil.
Get a picture of the board memeber. Put it in an envelope and casually hand it to her on the way into next meeting. Tell her you definitely found what you were searching for. Before she opens it, tell her it's the most hauntingly beautiful modern image you could ever hope to find. As soon as she opens it, move close, lock your eyes into hers and tell her you want her and you do not care who knows it... then tear a fire extinguisher off the wall and go flipping nuts. She'll start to see things your way.
An argument is won exactly because the other person more ignorant/less educated.
I think many clients expect/want a certain elisitism/arrogance is their architect.
Philip Johnson was an elitist and arrogant person and seemed to do OK, although he moved in circles of elitists, but he could be one silver-tongued devil when needed.
If I was in this conumdrum, I would summon up all the arrogance and belittle the girl, show her whos boss. Tell her your the architect and that you require faith from your clients. Then butter her up about the perfume she's wearing or her new ear rings.
yes. we actually need to be extremely careful about this and we most likely will not even provide examples of 'beautiful modern buildings' per her request. it's too risky for her to then assume that the buildings represent what we will design and could therefore jeopordize the project's approval (that is, if she doesnt think theyre beautiful).
I forgot to mention that this is the approval process for the master plan of the project and not the building design-- her conversation of aesthetic is premature.
Its sounds like she is false fronting, engaging you in aesthetic talk when it is not even relevant at this stage.
Don't get too hung up on her comment, personally I think she was probably feeling out of her depth and dropped an outrageous comment out of insecurity. I would see this as a chink in her armour and to be honest I think with a degree of smoozing and chat she will be easy to handle.
Your right about not showing her any examples, it only gives her ammo and if she wants ammo shes got to provide her own.
Use come critical thinking, play her, let her think she is getting her way while all the time leading her to your own predetermined conclusions.
At the end of the day, she is only one of many board members and with experience of these things its usually easy to deduce who really is calling the shots among the members and the odds are in your favour that she is not that person.
Having dealt with women in power positions I can also attest to their stubbornness and general desire to dictate for no apparent reason other than to stamp authority, possibly as a result of that rather large chip on the shoulder
<sarcasm> And of course one never, ever finds this attitude in any men in power positions. </sarcasm>
(I put the sarcasm notes in there for you zoolander in case this post was too subtle for you.)
"Use come critical thinking, play her, let her think she is getting her way while all the time leading her to your own predetermined conclusions."
Exactly!
Instead of defining good modernism for her, show her bad craftsmen, that is take your design and tweak it to poorly reflect what she is saying, this way you can control the visual that she has in mind of this project as "craftsmen" then you have something in which to contrast your beautiful "modern" design. I guarantee that she does not have the power to visualize things that you have, take a moment and use that to your advantage.
Don’t be afraid to listen to her too. Sometimes these people have some good insight into the character and people of the neighborhood; they just have trouble expressing it. It is clear from what she apparently said that she has trouble expressing the root of the apparent problem that she sees.
Sometimes I think half of our job is to be good mind readers for people who can't communicate.
it's almost a nonquestion about how to respond since obviously anything we say back is basically giving into her statements that, in context, make absolutely no sense whatsoever. ...but in hindsight im still looking for beautiful lowrise (modern) office buildings.. so if they cross your path..
LIG: you must put it on your to do visit list. I was there last summer...and it was grand. I'm not sure if you would call it craftsman or modern....but it was Jonesy!
Explain that cheap is cheap, no matter what the aesthetics. Show her shoddy designs of many different styles. One problem with 'modern' designs is that people think anything that is a box is 'modern', like a Walmart.
Think of things like warm materials, large views, smooth transitions of scale. Those are things that most people can appreciate.
Meier might be too stark and minimal, but I've always been able to get people that don't understand to appreciate the warmth of the wood floors, soft white walls and very large glass.
quizz - I'll have to disagree with you too. I do believe it is all about education. There is no education in school, outside of maybe a art history class. How can you expect someone to understand archietcture? I don't care if they are a brain surgeon, if they haven't educated themselves or been taught, then they don't know.
Just as I would not pretend to fully understand the nuances of classical music or certain art periods - I would need to be educated on those topics (and I always welcome that knowledge, but it isn't there just 'cause I think I am smart).
Client's always need to be educated on what is 'good' design and what is 'bad', it is part of the process.
But—unlike particle physics or playing the piano—EVERYONE thinks they're an expert on architecture.
In matters of taste, no one thinks for a second that they might have bad taste. It's hard to educate someone who doesn't think they need to be educated (i.e. this council member.)
methinks it hard, if not impossible, to "educate" people who serve on a Board or Council ... you don't have any real time to establish a personal relationship with such folks and they're not going to have much patience with a lecture about "good design" from an architect during Board meeetings.
I do think you can educate clients when you have an enduring, and long-standing, relationship with the client over time. But, that education begins with trust - absent trust, they're not going to listen and they're not going to learn.
my comments above were based on my long-standing view that you can't force feed the majority of the clients out there about what we do and why what's important to us should be important to them -- they either get it or they don't. If they don't get it at the beginning of the project, they're not very likely to get it during the project. If you are in the unfortunate situation where you're doing a single project for a client who just doesn't get it, then I believe you are wasting your time thinking you're going to have any meaningful impact on their aesthetic sensibilities over the course of that particular project.
In such cases, you either resign the commission (not likely) or you engage in a long and acrimonious debate (happens too frequently) or you search for an alternative way to delivery a decent project by diverting their attention to those things that they actually do understand and can control (i.e. budget, schedule and functionality) -- keep 'em wrapped up in that stuff and they won't have enough time to fret over much about design -- and, if they do, you always can say "well yes -- that would be another way to go and I respect your views on the matter ... but given where we are in the process, the budget and schedule just won't accommodate that sort of change without serious negative impact on both."
"One problem with 'modern' designs is that people think anything that is a box is 'modern', like a Walmart."
--this is a big part of it considering the typology. low rise office doesn't have a good rep in the US. I think it automatically leads one to think of a suburban office park. We will hopefully change this by creating a dynamic environment of public and private spaces.
quizzical i agree. as much as we'd like to entertain the idea of presenting them with modern context to the project (as we have been for months) we dont have enough time within our given 3min at council meetings to explain how functionalism is beautiful. Im sure if anyone on a board/council who is bold enough to state their personal taste in architecture, as if it should influence a project this size, is not going to be listening anyway.
"I can't say that i've seen a beautiful low rise office building in person."
Geez -- the "Name that Building. . ." has had some real sweethearts in that category, lately, hasn't it ? Various means of articulating the facade with alternating or staggered stacked rectangles of varying depths and/or frame thickness, or varying or alternating color or texture of frame and/or panel. . .
where are all the photo posters? keep posting the pics guys, the white wavelike condo/loft building was frickin sweet, and the church like arch thing in the forest was awesome too. Kinda reminds me of a church they built back in the old country, the exterior is neo modern with a twist on the local tradition of woodworking and the interior features thousands of hand carved details which are both traditional and contemporary. However the real treat is behind the church, where a small pathway leads down to a covered pavilion (no walls) which follows the same design aesthetic as the church above and is located right in the middle of the forested mountainside, bloody awe inspiring stuff (the arches in the forest remind me of this).
I'll try to find some pics and post them.
I do not equate "smarter" with being design savvy.
As far as the educating the client, it is just a matter of explaining why certain things are 'good' or 'better' than others, just as I would assume that my Dr. knows more about, say, my back than I do and I'd look to him for advice and suggestions (that's why I hire him).
trace - I agree - "smart" and "design savvy" are not always present in the same person. But, that's not really the point, is it?
Your medical analogy is valid only up to a point. Sure, most of us tend to defer to our doctor, or to our lawyer, or to our accountant because we're not exposed to complex medical, legal and accounting issues on a constant basis. (*)
However, just about everybody lives in a house or apartment and works in an office, warehouse, store or factory. We all see hundreds of buildings whenever we walk or drive anywhere.
This fact gives people a familiarity with buildings that's fundamentally different from our typical familiarity with the law, medicine or accountancy. It gives people greater confidence to express opinions about buildings or the style of buildings. And, it causes people to resent efforts by architects who "talk down to " or "instruct" lay-peoplie on matters of aesthetics.
IMHO, this is just the reality in which we operate. It seems pointless to wish it were otherwise or pretend we can ignore the way it is.
Over the course of a long career I've chosen to deal with the facts on the ground and adopted realistic strategies aimed at success under those conditions. I can still feel the wounds I received early in my career from adopting other, less realistic, tactics.
(*) I confess - I've spent many thousands of dollars on legal and accounting advice over the past 35 years. I've had good advisors who were willing to educate me on the finer points of the law and accounting. As a result I'm considerably more self-sufficient in those disciplines than was the case earlier. Now, I'm much less willing to defer to my accountant's or my lawyer's views and I'm much more willing to challenge positions they might take. They don't get offended because we have a bond of trust and they know I'm not just making it up as I go.
beautiful modernsim
neck deep in city council approval meetings one of the board members took it upon herself to tell us that she has 'never seen a modern building she doesnt think is ugly'. and furthers the statement explaining that she really enjoys craftsman aesthetic. hmm..craftsman, yeah.
oh wait, this is in conversation about our 800mil dollar mixed use development (1.2 million of f@#$@# office) how would you handle this. She now, outside of the public process, wants us to email her images of buildings to 'convince' her of beauty found in modern architecture.
get holz to bombard her email address with images. show no mercy!
ha! yer just as qualified, p2an.
with a joint attack the lady would be left with no choice but to revise her thoughts on modernism.
I'll bet she drives a modern looking car....and not a woodie.
either that or brush it off and claim architectural masturbation
you can send her this and say, "B-, b-, b-, baby, you just ain't seen na-, na-, nothin yet."
I'd send images of elegent contemporary buildings demonstrating a high level of massing and facade articulation. For many people, the term "Modern" is synonymous with dumb glass box tower, and the failure to unpack this adjective and discover what people really object to is the key.
By the way, architectural design is merely one in a whole series of forces playing a part in the production of the built environment. Politics, as we see here, is another component just as important, like it or not. Part of our job is intelligent and friendly persuasion.
she's set up a goose chase for you because she's in control of all the rules. you don't know a baseline of what she likes from which to start. craftsman ain't modern and craftsman-like modern ain't craftsman.
she's set you up to fail, especially if you only get to show her pictures.
now, if you could arrange to tour her through some projects by miller/hull or bohlin cywinski jackson or OSKA, you might have a chance, but then that might set you up for other problems of having to somehow match what they do.
yes i think the key is showing delicacy in facade treatment. It's tough though because our buildings are low rise (6-8flr) and I cant say that ive seen a beautiful low rise office building in person. Maybe 'beautiful isnt the right word' but they seem to only show themselves in magazine spreads.
or we'll just send her a stack of shiny dildos.
technically i think that'd be illegal (architect/planning commission meeting outside of public process). -but yes i agree. i think, being a planning commission board member (in a nearby seattle city), she would know of such work.
The Board member is not imbued with authority to reject something just because she doesn't like it's aesthetics, right? Where is it codified in the planning approval process that buildings are required to be 'craftsman style or similar"? I call bullshit.
*However* Since we architects want to help educate the populace to be better consumers of quality design, it can't hurt to reach out to her, AFTER your project is either approved or not on its own merits.
Rather than bombard her with images, send her (or better, meet with her - after your project is dealt with it won't be considered favoritism or conflict of interest any longer) and show her a couple of lovely Craftsman projects, and explain what makes Craftsman style distinguishable and good. Then show her a few good Modern projects, and explain, in relationship to the Craftsman, how elements of balance, harmony, proportion etc. are dealt with differently but still skillfully in both.
send her this image.
oh, and ask her...fcuk just elect Hillary Clinton.
You're not going to convince her. But your role isn't to convince her that modern is good—it's to convince her that her stylistic opinion isn't the only one that matters.
I've found with many traditionalists that they somehow think anyone who supports modern work is a freak, a one-off, and that the vast majority share the view that all modern architecture stinks.
You could go a long way toward opening her mind if you could demonstrate that other American communities have allowed good modern work to happen, and that there are a variety of opinions at work.
Convincing her that modern is good will be near-impossible in the time you have. But convincing her that a plurality of opinions is good might be an easier task -- it's built into American democracy, after all. And she was elected.
lb that's a great idea... kind of ease her into the zeitgiest ... and for most projects it seems good craftsman would be prohibitively expensive (because the economic structure that produced it no longer exists) and even if you designed it, the vendors & contractors are still going to deliver 'craftsman-like modern' as Stephen called it.
I'm a little sheepish to admit I have the same difficulty with my own family even, and haven't made progress
give her Dwell???
"But your role isn't to convince her that modern is good—it's to convince her that her stylistic opinion isn't the only one that matters."
yes.
In a project of that scale more important issues come to mind:
Social
Economic
Political
Spatial
Historical
Cultural
Functional
The little girl board member is try to make you think she has some understanding of architecture. If she thinks the success of such a project rests on the aesthetic and her view of architecture is limited to the 'craftsman aesthetic' you could be in trouble.
The problem with the uneducated like her is that they want all buildings to resemble the house they grew up in as a child. Maybe you could tease out of her the typology she grew up in, then interpret this in an eight storey office block (Frilly curtains on all windows a must, and a red front door). It will probably look hidious but she'll be overjoyed.
Having dealt with women in power positions I can also attest to their stubbornness and general desire to dictate for no apparent reason other than to stamp authority, possibly as a result of that rather large chip on the shoulder.
In her defence, with her limited perspective on architecture she probably has a perception of modernism as those 60's concrete tower blocks, so in her own reality she is correct, they were hidious.
Anyway I thought we were all past modernism and now embracing Decon??
I think it not helpful to think of our clients as uneducated ... often, they're way better educated than are we -- just in different disciplines.
You never win an argument or a debate when you assume the person on the other side of the issue is a) ignorant, b) uneducated, or c) less refined than you. Everybody has the right to their own taste and opinions -- when we approach our clients and patrons as less sophisticated than ourselves and expect them to bow down to us because we're the "experts" we're going to come across as elitist and arrogant -- and we're going to lose.
My advice -- avoid discussion of aesthetics altogether -- focus on functionality and what you can be built for the budget provided and within the time frame established by the client. Unless you've already got the client's trust on matters of aesthetics, you're not ever going to bring her around to your point of view on this project -- unless you're one true silver-tongued devil.
Get a picture of the board memeber. Put it in an envelope and casually hand it to her on the way into next meeting. Tell her you definitely found what you were searching for. Before she opens it, tell her it's the most hauntingly beautiful modern image you could ever hope to find. As soon as she opens it, move close, lock your eyes into hers and tell her you want her and you do not care who knows it... then tear a fire extinguisher off the wall and go flipping nuts. She'll start to see things your way.
I disagree quizzical,
An argument is won exactly because the other person more ignorant/less educated.
I think many clients expect/want a certain elisitism/arrogance is their architect.
Philip Johnson was an elitist and arrogant person and seemed to do OK, although he moved in circles of elitists, but he could be one silver-tongued devil when needed.
If I was in this conumdrum, I would summon up all the arrogance and belittle the girl, show her whos boss. Tell her your the architect and that you require faith from your clients. Then butter her up about the perfume she's wearing or her new ear rings.
zoolander, your last two posts were a tad sexist. thought you should know.
yeah, well ... after more than 35 years in this profession, I generally find that "elitsm and arrogance" don't work particularly well for me.
each to his (her) own, I suppose.
yes. we actually need to be extremely careful about this and we most likely will not even provide examples of 'beautiful modern buildings' per her request. it's too risky for her to then assume that the buildings represent what we will design and could therefore jeopordize the project's approval (that is, if she doesnt think theyre beautiful).
I forgot to mention that this is the approval process for the master plan of the project and not the building design-- her conversation of aesthetic is premature.
Again, call her bluff yamK
Its sounds like she is false fronting, engaging you in aesthetic talk when it is not even relevant at this stage.
Don't get too hung up on her comment, personally I think she was probably feeling out of her depth and dropped an outrageous comment out of insecurity. I would see this as a chink in her armour and to be honest I think with a degree of smoozing and chat she will be easy to handle.
Your right about not showing her any examples, it only gives her ammo and if she wants ammo shes got to provide her own.
Use come critical thinking, play her, let her think she is getting her way while all the time leading her to your own predetermined conclusions.
At the end of the day, she is only one of many board members and with experience of these things its usually easy to deduce who really is calling the shots among the members and the odds are in your favour that she is not that person.
<sarcasm> And of course one never, ever finds this attitude in any men in power positions. </sarcasm>
(I put the sarcasm notes in there for you zoolander in case this post was too subtle for you.)
Send her this.....and she'll really be conflicted:
"Use come critical thinking, play her, let her think she is getting her way while all the time leading her to your own predetermined conclusions."
Exactly!
Instead of defining good modernism for her, show her bad craftsmen, that is take your design and tweak it to poorly reflect what she is saying, this way you can control the visual that she has in mind of this project as "craftsmen" then you have something in which to contrast your beautiful "modern" design. I guarantee that she does not have the power to visualize things that you have, take a moment and use that to your advantage.
Don’t be afraid to listen to her too. Sometimes these people have some good insight into the character and people of the neighborhood; they just have trouble expressing it. It is clear from what she apparently said that she has trouble expressing the root of the apparent problem that she sees.
Sometimes I think half of our job is to be good mind readers for people who can't communicate.
Good luck.
^^ah modern craftsman
thanks for the responses, guys and gals.
it's almost a nonquestion about how to respond since obviously anything we say back is basically giving into her statements that, in context, make absolutely no sense whatsoever. ...but in hindsight im still looking for beautiful lowrise (modern) office buildings.. so if they cross your path..
modern craftsmen is what she wants..... you know it wont be good so just show it to her.
LIG: you must put it on your to do visit list. I was there last summer...and it was grand. I'm not sure if you would call it craftsman or modern....but it was Jonesy!
yamk - find a board member who is willing to go modern, or a board member who doesnt like craftsman and divide them
apparently this guy IS the modern craftsman
http://moderncraftsman.com/
Explain that cheap is cheap, no matter what the aesthetics. Show her shoddy designs of many different styles. One problem with 'modern' designs is that people think anything that is a box is 'modern', like a Walmart.
Think of things like warm materials, large views, smooth transitions of scale. Those are things that most people can appreciate.
Meier might be too stark and minimal, but I've always been able to get people that don't understand to appreciate the warmth of the wood floors, soft white walls and very large glass.
quizz - I'll have to disagree with you too. I do believe it is all about education. There is no education in school, outside of maybe a art history class. How can you expect someone to understand archietcture? I don't care if they are a brain surgeon, if they haven't educated themselves or been taught, then they don't know.
Just as I would not pretend to fully understand the nuances of classical music or certain art periods - I would need to be educated on those topics (and I always welcome that knowledge, but it isn't there just 'cause I think I am smart).
Client's always need to be educated on what is 'good' design and what is 'bad', it is part of the process.
But—unlike particle physics or playing the piano—EVERYONE thinks they're an expert on architecture.
In matters of taste, no one thinks for a second that they might have bad taste. It's hard to educate someone who doesn't think they need to be educated (i.e. this council member.)
methinks it hard, if not impossible, to "educate" people who serve on a Board or Council ... you don't have any real time to establish a personal relationship with such folks and they're not going to have much patience with a lecture about "good design" from an architect during Board meeetings.
I do think you can educate clients when you have an enduring, and long-standing, relationship with the client over time. But, that education begins with trust - absent trust, they're not going to listen and they're not going to learn.
my comments above were based on my long-standing view that you can't force feed the majority of the clients out there about what we do and why what's important to us should be important to them -- they either get it or they don't. If they don't get it at the beginning of the project, they're not very likely to get it during the project. If you are in the unfortunate situation where you're doing a single project for a client who just doesn't get it, then I believe you are wasting your time thinking you're going to have any meaningful impact on their aesthetic sensibilities over the course of that particular project.
In such cases, you either resign the commission (not likely) or you engage in a long and acrimonious debate (happens too frequently) or you search for an alternative way to delivery a decent project by diverting their attention to those things that they actually do understand and can control (i.e. budget, schedule and functionality) -- keep 'em wrapped up in that stuff and they won't have enough time to fret over much about design -- and, if they do, you always can say "well yes -- that would be another way to go and I respect your views on the matter ... but given where we are in the process, the budget and schedule just won't accommodate that sort of change without serious negative impact on both."
trace, be careful on the "re-education" of clients.
i had a former boss that was convinced everyone needed to know a relevant history of modern architecture to justify his work.
clients were often times a lot smarter than they were given credit for, leaving bossman w/ egg on his face.
"One problem with 'modern' designs is that people think anything that is a box is 'modern', like a Walmart."
--this is a big part of it considering the typology. low rise office doesn't have a good rep in the US. I think it automatically leads one to think of a suburban office park. We will hopefully change this by creating a dynamic environment of public and private spaces.
quizzical i agree. as much as we'd like to entertain the idea of presenting them with modern context to the project (as we have been for months) we dont have enough time within our given 3min at council meetings to explain how functionalism is beautiful. Im sure if anyone on a board/council who is bold enough to state their personal taste in architecture, as if it should influence a project this size, is not going to be listening anyway.
"I can't say that i've seen a beautiful low rise office building in person."
Geez -- the "Name that Building. . ." has had some real sweethearts in that category, lately, hasn't it ? Various means of articulating the facade with alternating or staggered stacked rectangles of varying depths and/or frame thickness, or varying or alternating color or texture of frame and/or panel. . .
"I think it not helpful to think of our clients as uneducated ... often, they're way better educated than are we -- just in different disciplines."
Indeed quizzical. I actually prefer my clients to be smarter than me, and when we eventually hire someone, the same applies to them.
where are all the photo posters? keep posting the pics guys, the white wavelike condo/loft building was frickin sweet, and the church like arch thing in the forest was awesome too. Kinda reminds me of a church they built back in the old country, the exterior is neo modern with a twist on the local tradition of woodworking and the interior features thousands of hand carved details which are both traditional and contemporary. However the real treat is behind the church, where a small pathway leads down to a covered pavilion (no walls) which follows the same design aesthetic as the church above and is located right in the middle of the forested mountainside, bloody awe inspiring stuff (the arches in the forest remind me of this).
I'll try to find some pics and post them.
I do not equate "smarter" with being design savvy.
As far as the educating the client, it is just a matter of explaining why certain things are 'good' or 'better' than others, just as I would assume that my Dr. knows more about, say, my back than I do and I'd look to him for advice and suggestions (that's why I hire him).
trace - I agree - "smart" and "design savvy" are not always present in the same person. But, that's not really the point, is it?
Your medical analogy is valid only up to a point. Sure, most of us tend to defer to our doctor, or to our lawyer, or to our accountant because we're not exposed to complex medical, legal and accounting issues on a constant basis. (*)
However, just about everybody lives in a house or apartment and works in an office, warehouse, store or factory. We all see hundreds of buildings whenever we walk or drive anywhere.
This fact gives people a familiarity with buildings that's fundamentally different from our typical familiarity with the law, medicine or accountancy. It gives people greater confidence to express opinions about buildings or the style of buildings. And, it causes people to resent efforts by architects who "talk down to " or "instruct" lay-peoplie on matters of aesthetics.
IMHO, this is just the reality in which we operate. It seems pointless to wish it were otherwise or pretend we can ignore the way it is.
Over the course of a long career I've chosen to deal with the facts on the ground and adopted realistic strategies aimed at success under those conditions. I can still feel the wounds I received early in my career from adopting other, less realistic, tactics.
(*) I confess - I've spent many thousands of dollars on legal and accounting advice over the past 35 years. I've had good advisors who were willing to educate me on the finer points of the law and accounting. As a result I'm considerably more self-sufficient in those disciplines than was the case earlier. Now, I'm much less willing to defer to my accountant's or my lawyer's views and I'm much more willing to challenge positions they might take. They don't get offended because we have a bond of trust and they know I'm not just making it up as I go.
all this craziness makes me wonder --- yamk, does your office even do craftsman?
How can a client wind up with an architect whose aesthetic they are not on board with well before this point.
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.