I think we tend to get stereotyped as being egotistical, arrogant, and only concerned with our own motives for the project. Certainly those attributes can be applied to some architects, but it is for the most part a worn out trope.

That said, I've been in lots of arguments recently with "laypeople" (I hate that term, but it gets my meaning across) who feel certain that their opinion of whether a design is "good" or not is as valid as mine, because architecture is a matter of taste. They are not willing to concede that my 25+ years of experience studying the built environment would make my analysis of whether something is successful or not more valid than theirs.

I'm not saying, as a designer, that I'm allowed to tell you what to like; people like things for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with design - they can be having an emotional response without being aware of it. But I can say, quantifiably, whether something is successful on specific design terms or not - I'm capable, to use your term - and most laypeople are not judging design by those measures.

LB, what matters most to you?

a) your happiness with the project

or

b) the clients happiness with the project

it's very hard to be happy with your project if your client is not.

of all people, it is almost always hard-EST for the architect to be happy with any project. sort of a parallel with this from lb's op-ed this week (don't miss it):

I recall reading an interview with a singer/guitarist in the grunge era, a small local band, who said after a performance he was typically surrounded by people telling him it was a great show, but inevitably one person would say something flippantly negative, and sadly that was the only comment he could ever remember as he laid awake at night.

rodgerT, Steven covers my likely answer pretty dang exactly, but I'm not sure because I'm not sure where your question is coming from?

Which of those things matters more to you?

Certainly architecture has the power to affect people, their mood, how much energy they consume, how comfortable they are, social relations between people, the kinds of performances of the places, a small piece of the mental map, the operation of the space they live/work/play in... We are involved in the translation of a clients priniples, and values into the space that they occupy...

I guess this depends on what we are talking about what market, are we talking about retail or peoples homes, or workplaces, or hospitals? All of these places affect peoples lives, the people who work and live there every day, but also visitors.

I don't think this is arrogant, it's not that we are the "chosen ones". since the process is a collaborative one involving alot of different people and areas of expertise, but I do think this is where we bring value to the thing. If we don't have ideas or offer design expertise, what are we really doing? Isn't our role basically to be consultants, ideas (and project management) people representing the client?

there are many bad designers as well as many bad designs

Is there a definition for BAD DESIGN or for that matter GOOD DESIGN ? isn't desgn all the more based on individual perceptions ??

As a group of architecture students we have had innumerous discussions on the same...and not surprisingly everyone has their own reasons and beliefs. But still as mdler said ....."there are many bad designers as well as many bad designs" .....isn't any design which doesn't satisfy the client and the user ...a bad design?

i guess design is something of which a designer is an integral part. But the other equally integral parts are the clients and the users. So when a designer tends to approach a design as "HIS/HER" design , is he /she rolling down the right path ??

As designers or architects or clients ...i guess all of you would have some or the other time been in a situation when a designer has made something in response to a brief and the client says...."everything is fine but i think we can just remove this element from here and add this thing there"...........let's say the Howard Roark kind of situation.

So then ..as liberty bell has written above.... does the designer give up ??? what is his/her role in that situation ??

good design is hard to pin down, possibly, but bad design can certainly be defined by any number of potential failings. i'd say it's not a either/or but that there is a constantly shifting scale between better/worse - and that even then you'll probably find endless disagreement about whether things are getting better or worse regarding each decision made. design, when you talk about the day to day profession, is a process of negotiation as much as it is one of creative production.

in architecture
good design may be described as something which minimizes life-cycle costs while keeping a project within a small budget.
good design may be described as something which is a new synthesis of technology and material in the realization of a new kind of structure.
good design may be described as something which challenges its users to engage with the space in which they work or live.
good design may be described as something which simply accommodates any sort of use but stays out of the way.

ultimately, good design is probably just something which best meets the needs of the stakeholders in the project. next job is to define the stakeholders: general public? just the client? users? neighborhood landmarks review board? architecture students? architecture historians? contractors? other architects? blair kamin? man in the street?

who chooses? how do you choose?

your initial question, pinkslave, suggests that designers somehow act in a vacuum and hand down our creations to a society which should be thankful (or not). that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what architects do.

Picking up on Steven's thoughts above I want to introduce the idea I learned in actually reading a review about an automobile. An Audi RS6 Avant. The single aspect in the review about the car that I took away and thought it could relate to architecture is that "everything worked as it should and improved one's driving pleasure".

Bad design I think we could generalize are projects when things fail or don't work as they should. I have often though about that idea that a well designed______ ( fill in the blank ) functions perfectly as it should, no shortcomings, flaws and I feel better there than when I'm not there. Simple idea but difficult to execute, almost to a point where you forget about the design because everything is just so naturally planned that it doesn't seem designed at all. How weird is that!

I hope these Architects are working on something far more functional than what the Real Architects Do.

"It was a delicate balancing act for the architects of the proposal who had to be careful that in adding elements to entice new support they did not lose the support they already had." NYT this evening in regard to the Senators and the bail out plan to be placed before them this evening.

I was out at around 6:00 and damn the streets were empty. I was feeling like I was in a ghost town. Then I looked to the west and saw a blazing red sunset....and I knew all was well.

Whister...you remember the Ford Tarus... I heard its design was based upon the Ford Logo....and I do believe it because I have seen it. It was a bad ass ugly car...it went to Detroit Hell!