they usually are. otherwise it is awfully costly to have one without the other. latter, without the former, costs in self reflection. former, without the latter, can be useless after school.
my +,- opinion after many years of contemplating...
on a different subject, you reminded me this, thank you!
at the heart of this is the age-old contradiction between time/resource heavy, process-oriented, quality architecture, and profit-driven, market-oriented, efficient business.
in other words... is quality architecture (difficult to define, but let's say architecture that is innovative...critical...richly phenomenological) possible while still achieving profitability, reliable/accurate budgeting/costing and on-time project delivery?
furthermore, are there any firms out who's works support the notion that this is possible (besides the aforementioned SHOP, who employ at least one partner with a background in finance. and not counting starchitects who can rely on their brand to inflate fees to overcome otherwise bloated overhead--notwithstanding whether starchitects even necessarily always create "quality" architecture)
if you question the quality of the architecture of the starchitects then i wonder why you are asking the question at all. MOST offices will say they do good architecture and make money at it. otherwise what is the point. but if you mean can an architecture office make cutting-edge architecture without being a starchitect, then i suppose the answer is...
...sure why not?
the distinction is not about potential, it is about interests. starchitect office culture is different than non-starchitect office culture. there are overlaps to be sure, but really it comes down to what the principals want to do, not some kind of inherent schism in how architecture gets done.
OMA went bankrupt not so long ago. now they are involved as developers apparently. i guess they learned some lessons and they seem to be making money and doing high end design without getting upset over the process. there is no contradiction.
I saw a 9-square matrix one time that was organized types of firms by service and level of design. I thought it was in The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice, but apparently it is not. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?
there shouldn't really be an issue of 'reconciling' because good design and good business are not necessarily at odds.
i strive for both with each project and have more-or-less success depending on a variety of influences, victories, and failings among the team involved in getting the thing built: clients, architects, engineers, contractors, users, etc.
taunus - note that this month's arch record has their annual good design/good business selections, sponsored by business week and arch record together. whether this is your idea of good design or not, there is obviously some attention being paid to exactly the issue you raise and they're trying to build an argument that we are mutually supportive with business interests.
I agree with SW - these shouldn't be exclusive priorities. I think it has more to do with the firm's objectives (and talent, or lack there of) than budgets.
Haven't we all seen enough good design on limited budgets? We just got pricing back for our building and it is coming in lower than most of the mediocre design (at best, although there is a gem here and there) around town. We just consciously thought of ways to keep our design ideals while keeping costs in mind.
I dunno, having unlimited budgets would be cool, but it always sounds more like an excuse to me.
Good design is good business. I think if you fold the objectives of running a project efficiently, fiscally sensibly, along with pursing excellent formal design, then it can be profitable. It's when design rules the budget, or completely ignores it that trouble starts. That's why architects really need to be educated in more than just form making...they need excellent communication skills, a understanding of legal, accounting and business issues. Architecture is a very encompassing profession.
taunus, having earned an MBA in addition to my MArch, I have given extensive thought to this area of concern. I would argue that my perspective on fiscal and strategic management influence my design perspective as much as my design sensibilities shape how I would run a business.
Like Steven said, these two knowledge ares are not at odds. I believe a core business education should be fundamental to every design curricula.
I believe this to be a fundamental problem within the culture of design education today. Rather than seeing the realms of economy and ecology holistically, as cohesive, interdependent bodies of knowledge, most 'designers' have more of an adversarial view of project finance.
in response to the comments referring to "good business" in terms of making the clients happy, as in, buildings that are profitable, or less costly (on limited budgets).... while that's certainly smart business on the part of the architect, it doesn't entirely address the profitability of the architect. It's great (commendable, in the form of awards no less) if an architect keeps construction costs down, long-term operating costs down etc., but this doesn't necessarily boost the profit margin of the architect. You could certainly argue that by doing this sort of thing, an architect could negotiate a better fee for him or herself, but this is certainly not always the case.
Ultimately architects are often willing to sacrifice much of their profit in the service of better design--they undervalue their services. Many of you have argued that it's possible to still do both. But perhaps the question is, how do we sell our services (good design) as valuable in itself, as worth the extra fee. SHOP has argued that their innovative designs actually make their clients more money, and in return their clients are thus willing to pay more for SHOP's services. Joshua Ramus of REX has made similar statements, that he negotiates his contracts this way.
Just bringing in a project on time and under budget is not enough to call it good design. A client, who may not understand what could have been, may be satisfied with such a project. But shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard? Can a building come in at budget, ontime, with high design quality and make the architect a healthy profit at the same time?
I agree with ryanj and corbusier4eva in that we as architects are responsible for both kinds of thinking. We should be able to make a healthy profit and simultaneously create beautiful, functional buildings. But, again, beyond starchitects, there are few architects out there that achieve this balance. They are either morally bankrupt (design-wise), or literally bankrupt.
What is always surprised me is watching bad design - it typically takes the same man hours of the architect as good design, maybe not super great, but good design.
If SHOP and REX are getting paid more, that is wonderful! I've argued for ages that I think that is one of the largest problems with architecture - the fees are the same whether you suck or are talented.
Like other creative professions, the most talented should be able to charge more. This would work itself out, eventually, as people would be proud owners and occupants of better design and not let it all be something decided around a dinner table discussion.
MAD - I was just reading about him in RA. This approach is something I think we'll see more and more of (and hope to be a part of). Inspiring.
my partner is developer. he is licensed architect as well. we have won some design awards. nothing impt, but still....
the economy is a bit tuff right now, but we take fees at every level of design, from finding real estate, to negotiating tax issues (for overseas investors), buying land, managing properties, etc. and we do design. those are srvices we can offer that frankly very few can. so we have that to lean on to make office profitable. or we did. now the banks are shut there is not so much call for such things.
which is also a point in itself. if you want to make more money you have to stand out. but that means you might need to take on some risk. value-added through design is great, but i think is basically just a starting point. the people with money don't give a flying fcuk if you say you can add value or save energy, because i guarantee you there are 100 other firms who can do the same thing within shouting distance. the trick is to do superb design, plus other stuff that is invisible.
as much as i hate to admit it, it is the invisible stuff that makes the money. the things we learned in school are just enough to be competent, even if we are starchitect good at it.
but that really has absolutely nothing to do with architecture. which is really the big point, isn't it...
an assumption made in several of the comments here, of course, is that what starchitects do is good architecture. arguable, in many cases.
i'm glad that there is room in the profession for me to continue doing good, solid, relatively simple and quiet work. in fact, i think there is MORE room for this kind of work than for star-power work.
business is best when we're not all doing the same thing. sure, shop and rex have their thing - and i admire it. alsop and gehry have their things and adjaye and legoretta have theirs. luckily, there are firms that can do really high-quality medical work and really high-quality lab work, too, while they may not necessarily be names we all know. this is all potentially 'good' design.
in response to taunus'
"is (...)architecture that is innovative...critical...richly phenomenological possible while still achieving profitability, reliable/accurate budgeting/costing and on-time project delivery?"
...
why are designers, architects, so willing to consider sacrificing reliable/accurate budgeting/costing and on-time project delivery? i would also add "client's goals and values" - these always seem to be considered second-tier in our thought process. the more i work, i learn that if i am willing to focus on budget, project delivery, technical issues, and specially the client's values (not their wishlist, their core values), not only will you run a successful project, you will have the respect of your client, which in turn enables you to produce innovative, critical, richly phenomenological architecture.
our profession really needs, especially now, to focus on what is inherit valuable in our work.
why are architects so eager to assume that starchitects don't aim at budget, time, good detailing, client needs, etc. as primary goals?
i know a few starchitects who kick ass with all of that. it is absurd to think that any architect of world-class stature is not shrewd at business. piano, arets, gehry (yes, gehry has his shit together), foster. there are many more. if you sit down with one of these architects and talk business strategy with them you might be surprised to find out that they 1. actually HAVE a business strategy, and 2. know exactly what they are doing and why. if they don't then maybe they won't be starchitects for long.
ok, i have only met and chatted up a few of the monograph crowd, but seriously they are world class for a reason. don't let the archi-babble fool you.
just saying. you know.
as for the rest, well i do think that aiming to be competent is aiming too low. this does not mean we all have to be starchitects, mind you.
"1. actually HAVE a business strategy, and 2. know exactly what they are doing and why. if they don't then maybe they won't be starchitects for long."
this culture of 'starchitects' has nothing to do with admiring one's management of a design practice. it's an irrational fetishization of ones design ability and production of sexy imagery. nothing more.
The biggest thing that stararchitects do that others can't is:
1. Enter endless competitions
2. "irrational fetishization of ones design ability and production of sexy imagery"
[I'd argue it isn't irrational, though. I'd sure like to have the financial capability of spending weeks on 'cool' imagery that is essentially just art.]
The can do this because:
1. They have money, either from family or marriage
2. Endless supplies of willing (and talented) worker bees
after reading JUMP input, im remembering how offices like FOSTER & PARTNERS and HADID ARCHITECTS and some other few "STARCHITECTS" are every year into the list of the 100 most profitable architectural firms in the world (BD online magazine), so i think, we cannot deny those are offices which can reconcile "good design" with "good business".
personally i think offices which try to have, or have a R+D approach or even better a R+D division are always going to be able to manage efficiently --> good design+good quality=good bussiness
What if the client is stubborn as hell and doesn't understand that what they're asking for, while possible, will result in one of the worst spaces imaginable?
as some people wear the most outrageously ugly clothes, there's people who like to live and ¡or do their activities in really bad spaces, is about the way each of us is used to, there's no standard for a good space, since there's no standard for human (let's try to evolve from modernist thinking), yes most of times clients can be stubborn and/or wrong, but that doesnt mean we are always right, not the spaces we think are the best ones for "x" or "y" activity might turn out to be the best one for the user.
nah, the secret is giving them just one option a time, and always the right one ;)
never have a doubt in front of them, if you give out 2 options at the same time, subconsciously he could think you are not really sure which one could be the best, so i always try to go with one, and have strong reasons to back up my solution.... dont show weakness ;)
You always have to have a clear agenda when presenting to clients. If you show 3 ideas, make sure you have a strategy on how to present to encourage them to choose the better solution.
After all, they hired you for your skills and opinions. Up to you to present it in a way that it is clear to them.
As MAD notes, be confident in your design and opinion, be quick to address their thoughts and suggestions (sometimes they can be good, sometimes they can be silly, but if you can quickly address them you can usually squelch silly ideas and integrate good ideas, both of which will give the client more reason to respect and trust you).
One thing I've fairly consistently found with our clients is that they almost universally respond to functional design explanations. And almost never to qualitative explanations.
Let's say you're designing a bathroom and you tell them: "in scheme A, you'll get 5 more square feet and an extra niche for soap. In scheme B, you'll get neither of those items, but it will be a much more beautiful space."
Most of the time, they go with scheme A. I guess it's a part of our "supersize me" culture. Everyone wants value rather than quality.
All about translating your ideas into something tangible (something they don't teach you in school, unfortunately, also something most of the stararchitects seem to be quite good at when addressing the general public).
If profitability is driven by efficiency and if innovation is inefficient – is balancing profitability and innovation a “Zero Sum Game” at the firm level?
Are design innovation and reliable budgets/project delivery a Zero Sum Game at the project level?
Is it possible to deliver simultaneously innovative design, accurate project costing, reliable project delivery, and significant profits to employees and shareholders?
_________________________________________________
Profitability is not the end in itself—the way they would define it in business school. It’s clear to anyone in the architecture world that no one chooses this profession based on financial motivations. This is not conciliation, however, not an undervaluation of our services. It’s an early realization that efficient business and innovative design cannot co-exist on equal planes. While certainly more money, the result of efficient business, can finance the extra time necessary for the refinement of good design, and good design itself can, sometimes, become intrinsically linked to profit-production, the two entities are destined for a constant balancing act.
We are reminded of this throughout our entire education. There is a reason why design students don’t sleep at night and work twice as many hours as students in any other degree program. Because good design, innovative design, is not possible within a forty hour week. The first solution, the second solution, even the tenth solution is never the best solution. Design is a process of refinement. We have always been taught that the design is never finished--not at pin-up, not at the “final” review—it is always in a state of flux, under constant re-evaluation. It can always be improved, re-worked, adjusted, modified. This is built in to our psyche. If it were possible to work on a single problem forever, we could. That’s why we set deadlines, have desk-crits, pin-ups and reviews; because if we didn’t, we’d keep chipping away at the problem forever. There’s no such thing as a correct design solution—only better ones. Everything is relative—the latest design judged only by the iterations that came before it.
This mentality does not leave us when we enter the professional world. As in school, we are met with deadlines: client meetings, construction timelines, regulatory deadlines etc. As in school, we navigate these temporal landscapes, exploiting them as much as possible to refine and rework as much as is possible. But where sleepless nights may have come at the expense of personal health and social interaction back in school, in the professional world, they cost money. The question becomes: what is the n’th refinement that puts us in the red, that disenchants our client, that exasperates the contractor? In the professional world you have no choice but to address these issues. The design process has to end, and every architect has to decide when that happens and how much (most likely unbilled) overtime is accumulated in the mean time.
This is not to say that the delivery process, construction methods and client interaction are not design problems in themselves, ripe for innovation. Each is an opportunity to improve upon the process and can ultimately serve the end-product—the finished building. But in a climate of scarcity, resources are stretched thin. To make budget and schedule, design has to end. One can always try to negotiate higher fees to be able to saturate the brain power and man-hours, to extend the production, but architects must accept that at some point in our never-ending whittling of the design, that the client will not register the added value. The value we see, that intangible integrity, cannot always be measured in dollars, the language of development. At this moment every architect has to make a decision. Do we, the architects, stop designing when the client is satisfied (and as a result, we presumably make a big profit), or do we stop designing when to continue would be to lose money ourselves (assuming that we have not cost the client anything extra in doing so), or somewhere else in between?
This brings us back to profitability. Perhaps profitability is not actually making a profit. Perhaps to “profit” is to make a living salary which allows you to go to work everyday knowing that you enjoy what you do, and you respect what you do.
no, i would not say that. though it is tempting to say so, i really don't think it is worth sticking to a job that underpays for long periods. i don't make much right now because i just started an office. maybe we will make it maybe we won't. but if we continue to earn what we are now, in spite of the pics in the magazines and the tremendous job satisfaction i will quit. profit, as measured in traditional economic way, is essential. unless you have a trust fund.
the background motivation for that point of view are my 2 kids and a wife who would lose all respect for me if i treated my career as a hobby - where i made money for other people but not for us just to be satisfied in a job well done. such an approach is neither necessary nor sufficient.
i have dealt with clients that had no idea on the cost of things..... some thought they could do a bathroom renovation for 2g's ...along those lines....
profit is there to buy other items and grow...and survive in the low times/etc......
Nov 14, 08 8:21 pm ·
·
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.
How do you reconcile "good design" with "good business"?
Are both really simultaneously attainable?
food for thought....
they usually are. otherwise it is awfully costly to have one without the other. latter, without the former, costs in self reflection. former, without the latter, can be useless after school.
my +,- opinion after many years of contemplating...
on a different subject, you reminded me this, thank you!
taunus - what do you mean by "good business?"
there is such a thing as a well-designed business.
good question.
at the heart of this is the age-old contradiction between time/resource heavy, process-oriented, quality architecture, and profit-driven, market-oriented, efficient business.
in other words... is quality architecture (difficult to define, but let's say architecture that is innovative...critical...richly phenomenological) possible while still achieving profitability, reliable/accurate budgeting/costing and on-time project delivery?
furthermore, are there any firms out who's works support the notion that this is possible (besides the aforementioned SHOP, who employ at least one partner with a background in finance. and not counting starchitects who can rely on their brand to inflate fees to overcome otherwise bloated overhead--notwithstanding whether starchitects even necessarily always create "quality" architecture)
if you question the quality of the architecture of the starchitects then i wonder why you are asking the question at all. MOST offices will say they do good architecture and make money at it. otherwise what is the point. but if you mean can an architecture office make cutting-edge architecture without being a starchitect, then i suppose the answer is...
...sure why not?
the distinction is not about potential, it is about interests. starchitect office culture is different than non-starchitect office culture. there are overlaps to be sure, but really it comes down to what the principals want to do, not some kind of inherent schism in how architecture gets done.
OMA went bankrupt not so long ago. now they are involved as developers apparently. i guess they learned some lessons and they seem to be making money and doing high end design without getting upset over the process. there is no contradiction.
I saw a 9-square matrix one time that was organized types of firms by service and level of design. I thought it was in The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice, but apparently it is not. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?
Can someone fund a god damn building so we can get back to the business of design?
there shouldn't really be an issue of 'reconciling' because good design and good business are not necessarily at odds.
i strive for both with each project and have more-or-less success depending on a variety of influences, victories, and failings among the team involved in getting the thing built: clients, architects, engineers, contractors, users, etc.
taunus - note that this month's arch record has their annual good design/good business selections, sponsored by business week and arch record together. whether this is your idea of good design or not, there is obviously some attention being paid to exactly the issue you raise and they're trying to build an argument that we are mutually supportive with business interests.
I agree with SW - these shouldn't be exclusive priorities. I think it has more to do with the firm's objectives (and talent, or lack there of) than budgets.
Haven't we all seen enough good design on limited budgets? We just got pricing back for our building and it is coming in lower than most of the mediocre design (at best, although there is a gem here and there) around town. We just consciously thought of ways to keep our design ideals while keeping costs in mind.
I dunno, having unlimited budgets would be cool, but it always sounds more like an excuse to me.
Good design is good business. I think if you fold the objectives of running a project efficiently, fiscally sensibly, along with pursing excellent formal design, then it can be profitable. It's when design rules the budget, or completely ignores it that trouble starts. That's why architects really need to be educated in more than just form making...they need excellent communication skills, a understanding of legal, accounting and business issues. Architecture is a very encompassing profession.
You know, they have awards for these types of things.
Ahh, I see that Steven has cited these already.
taunus, having earned an MBA in addition to my MArch, I have given extensive thought to this area of concern. I would argue that my perspective on fiscal and strategic management influence my design perspective as much as my design sensibilities shape how I would run a business.
Like Steven said, these two knowledge ares are not at odds. I believe a core business education should be fundamental to every design curricula.
I believe this to be a fundamental problem within the culture of design education today. Rather than seeing the realms of economy and ecology holistically, as cohesive, interdependent bodies of knowledge, most 'designers' have more of an adversarial view of project finance.
I guess you could say that it's a 'yin yang' sort of thing...
in response to the comments referring to "good business" in terms of making the clients happy, as in, buildings that are profitable, or less costly (on limited budgets).... while that's certainly smart business on the part of the architect, it doesn't entirely address the profitability of the architect. It's great (commendable, in the form of awards no less) if an architect keeps construction costs down, long-term operating costs down etc., but this doesn't necessarily boost the profit margin of the architect. You could certainly argue that by doing this sort of thing, an architect could negotiate a better fee for him or herself, but this is certainly not always the case.
Ultimately architects are often willing to sacrifice much of their profit in the service of better design--they undervalue their services. Many of you have argued that it's possible to still do both. But perhaps the question is, how do we sell our services (good design) as valuable in itself, as worth the extra fee. SHOP has argued that their innovative designs actually make their clients more money, and in return their clients are thus willing to pay more for SHOP's services. Joshua Ramus of REX has made similar statements, that he negotiates his contracts this way.
Just bringing in a project on time and under budget is not enough to call it good design. A client, who may not understand what could have been, may be satisfied with such a project. But shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard? Can a building come in at budget, ontime, with high design quality and make the architect a healthy profit at the same time?
I agree with ryanj and corbusier4eva in that we as architects are responsible for both kinds of thinking. We should be able to make a healthy profit and simultaneously create beautiful, functional buildings. But, again, beyond starchitects, there are few architects out there that achieve this balance. They are either morally bankrupt (design-wise), or literally bankrupt.
What is always surprised me is watching bad design - it typically takes the same man hours of the architect as good design, maybe not super great, but good design.
If SHOP and REX are getting paid more, that is wonderful! I've argued for ages that I think that is one of the largest problems with architecture - the fees are the same whether you suck or are talented.
Like other creative professions, the most talented should be able to charge more. This would work itself out, eventually, as people would be proud owners and occupants of better design and not let it all be something decided around a dinner table discussion.
MAD - I was just reading about him in RA. This approach is something I think we'll see more and more of (and hope to be a part of). Inspiring.
yo trace maybe in the states but at least latin america and such (de-regulated places) u dont charge the same if u suck or if you are good....
my partner is developer. he is licensed architect as well. we have won some design awards. nothing impt, but still....
the economy is a bit tuff right now, but we take fees at every level of design, from finding real estate, to negotiating tax issues (for overseas investors), buying land, managing properties, etc. and we do design. those are srvices we can offer that frankly very few can. so we have that to lean on to make office profitable. or we did. now the banks are shut there is not so much call for such things.
which is also a point in itself. if you want to make more money you have to stand out. but that means you might need to take on some risk. value-added through design is great, but i think is basically just a starting point. the people with money don't give a flying fcuk if you say you can add value or save energy, because i guarantee you there are 100 other firms who can do the same thing within shouting distance. the trick is to do superb design, plus other stuff that is invisible.
as much as i hate to admit it, it is the invisible stuff that makes the money. the things we learned in school are just enough to be competent, even if we are starchitect good at it.
but that really has absolutely nothing to do with architecture. which is really the big point, isn't it...
an assumption made in several of the comments here, of course, is that what starchitects do is good architecture. arguable, in many cases.
i'm glad that there is room in the profession for me to continue doing good, solid, relatively simple and quiet work. in fact, i think there is MORE room for this kind of work than for star-power work.
business is best when we're not all doing the same thing. sure, shop and rex have their thing - and i admire it. alsop and gehry have their things and adjaye and legoretta have theirs. luckily, there are firms that can do really high-quality medical work and really high-quality lab work, too, while they may not necessarily be names we all know. this is all potentially 'good' design.
The nine-square grid mentioned by Just Why is by Weld Coxe in Managing Architectural and Engineering Practice. You might find it here:
coxegroup
in response to taunus'
"is (...)architecture that is innovative...critical...richly phenomenological possible while still achieving profitability, reliable/accurate budgeting/costing and on-time project delivery?"
...
why are designers, architects, so willing to consider sacrificing reliable/accurate budgeting/costing and on-time project delivery? i would also add "client's goals and values" - these always seem to be considered second-tier in our thought process. the more i work, i learn that if i am willing to focus on budget, project delivery, technical issues, and specially the client's values (not their wishlist, their core values), not only will you run a successful project, you will have the respect of your client, which in turn enables you to produce innovative, critical, richly phenomenological architecture.
our profession really needs, especially now, to focus on what is inherit valuable in our work.
why are architects so eager to assume that starchitects don't aim at budget, time, good detailing, client needs, etc. as primary goals?
i know a few starchitects who kick ass with all of that. it is absurd to think that any architect of world-class stature is not shrewd at business. piano, arets, gehry (yes, gehry has his shit together), foster. there are many more. if you sit down with one of these architects and talk business strategy with them you might be surprised to find out that they 1. actually HAVE a business strategy, and 2. know exactly what they are doing and why. if they don't then maybe they won't be starchitects for long.
ok, i have only met and chatted up a few of the monograph crowd, but seriously they are world class for a reason. don't let the archi-babble fool you.
just saying. you know.
as for the rest, well i do think that aiming to be competent is aiming too low. this does not mean we all have to be starchitects, mind you.
if they are such great fiscal managers, why can't they afford to pay their interns anything?
haha. that's part of their fiscal management strategy.
oh, right...i guess that would tarnish their reputation as an idol of 'starving artist' everywhere.
"1. actually HAVE a business strategy, and 2. know exactly what they are doing and why. if they don't then maybe they won't be starchitects for long."
this culture of 'starchitects' has nothing to do with admiring one's management of a design practice. it's an irrational fetishization of ones design ability and production of sexy imagery. nothing more.
The biggest thing that stararchitects do that others can't is:
1. Enter endless competitions
2. "irrational fetishization of ones design ability and production of sexy imagery"
[I'd argue it isn't irrational, though. I'd sure like to have the financial capability of spending weeks on 'cool' imagery that is essentially just art.]
The can do this because:
1. They have money, either from family or marriage
2. Endless supplies of willing (and talented) worker bees
The act of producing sexy imagery is certainly not irrational, it's just what sells. although it is only one example of value addedness
after reading JUMP input, im remembering how offices like FOSTER & PARTNERS and HADID ARCHITECTS and some other few "STARCHITECTS" are every year into the list of the 100 most profitable architectural firms in the world (BD online magazine), so i think, we cannot deny those are offices which can reconcile "good design" with "good business".
personally i think offices which try to have, or have a R+D approach or even better a R+D division are always going to be able to manage efficiently --> good design+good quality=good bussiness
Is the client always right?
What if the client is stubborn as hell and doesn't understand that what they're asking for, while possible, will result in one of the worst spaces imaginable?
as some people wear the most outrageously ugly clothes, there's people who like to live and ¡or do their activities in really bad spaces, is about the way each of us is used to, there's no standard for a good space, since there's no standard for human (let's try to evolve from modernist thinking), yes most of times clients can be stubborn and/or wrong, but that doesnt mean we are always right, not the spaces we think are the best ones for "x" or "y" activity might turn out to be the best one for the user.
I feel like whenever you give two options to a client, he always picks the worst one...
Or maybe I just have the worst clients?
nah, the secret is giving them just one option a time, and always the right one ;)
never have a doubt in front of them, if you give out 2 options at the same time, subconsciously he could think you are not really sure which one could be the best, so i always try to go with one, and have strong reasons to back up my solution.... dont show weakness ;)
You always have to have a clear agenda when presenting to clients. If you show 3 ideas, make sure you have a strategy on how to present to encourage them to choose the better solution.
After all, they hired you for your skills and opinions. Up to you to present it in a way that it is clear to them.
As MAD notes, be confident in your design and opinion, be quick to address their thoughts and suggestions (sometimes they can be good, sometimes they can be silly, but if you can quickly address them you can usually squelch silly ideas and integrate good ideas, both of which will give the client more reason to respect and trust you).
One thing I've fairly consistently found with our clients is that they almost universally respond to functional design explanations. And almost never to qualitative explanations.
Let's say you're designing a bathroom and you tell them: "in scheme A, you'll get 5 more square feet and an extra niche for soap. In scheme B, you'll get neither of those items, but it will be a much more beautiful space."
Most of the time, they go with scheme A. I guess it's a part of our "supersize me" culture. Everyone wants value rather than quality.
unless you can quantify quality :-)
All about translating your ideas into something tangible (something they don't teach you in school, unfortunately, also something most of the stararchitects seem to be quite good at when addressing the general public).
in response to the following questions....
If profitability is driven by efficiency and if innovation is inefficient – is balancing profitability and innovation a “Zero Sum Game” at the firm level?
Are design innovation and reliable budgets/project delivery a Zero Sum Game at the project level?
Is it possible to deliver simultaneously innovative design, accurate project costing, reliable project delivery, and significant profits to employees and shareholders?
_________________________________________________
Profitability is not the end in itself—the way they would define it in business school. It’s clear to anyone in the architecture world that no one chooses this profession based on financial motivations. This is not conciliation, however, not an undervaluation of our services. It’s an early realization that efficient business and innovative design cannot co-exist on equal planes. While certainly more money, the result of efficient business, can finance the extra time necessary for the refinement of good design, and good design itself can, sometimes, become intrinsically linked to profit-production, the two entities are destined for a constant balancing act.
We are reminded of this throughout our entire education. There is a reason why design students don’t sleep at night and work twice as many hours as students in any other degree program. Because good design, innovative design, is not possible within a forty hour week. The first solution, the second solution, even the tenth solution is never the best solution. Design is a process of refinement. We have always been taught that the design is never finished--not at pin-up, not at the “final” review—it is always in a state of flux, under constant re-evaluation. It can always be improved, re-worked, adjusted, modified. This is built in to our psyche. If it were possible to work on a single problem forever, we could. That’s why we set deadlines, have desk-crits, pin-ups and reviews; because if we didn’t, we’d keep chipping away at the problem forever. There’s no such thing as a correct design solution—only better ones. Everything is relative—the latest design judged only by the iterations that came before it.
This mentality does not leave us when we enter the professional world. As in school, we are met with deadlines: client meetings, construction timelines, regulatory deadlines etc. As in school, we navigate these temporal landscapes, exploiting them as much as possible to refine and rework as much as is possible. But where sleepless nights may have come at the expense of personal health and social interaction back in school, in the professional world, they cost money. The question becomes: what is the n’th refinement that puts us in the red, that disenchants our client, that exasperates the contractor? In the professional world you have no choice but to address these issues. The design process has to end, and every architect has to decide when that happens and how much (most likely unbilled) overtime is accumulated in the mean time.
This is not to say that the delivery process, construction methods and client interaction are not design problems in themselves, ripe for innovation. Each is an opportunity to improve upon the process and can ultimately serve the end-product—the finished building. But in a climate of scarcity, resources are stretched thin. To make budget and schedule, design has to end. One can always try to negotiate higher fees to be able to saturate the brain power and man-hours, to extend the production, but architects must accept that at some point in our never-ending whittling of the design, that the client will not register the added value. The value we see, that intangible integrity, cannot always be measured in dollars, the language of development. At this moment every architect has to make a decision. Do we, the architects, stop designing when the client is satisfied (and as a result, we presumably make a big profit), or do we stop designing when to continue would be to lose money ourselves (assuming that we have not cost the client anything extra in doing so), or somewhere else in between?
This brings us back to profitability. Perhaps profitability is not actually making a profit. Perhaps to “profit” is to make a living salary which allows you to go to work everyday knowing that you enjoy what you do, and you respect what you do.
no, i would not say that. though it is tempting to say so, i really don't think it is worth sticking to a job that underpays for long periods. i don't make much right now because i just started an office. maybe we will make it maybe we won't. but if we continue to earn what we are now, in spite of the pics in the magazines and the tremendous job satisfaction i will quit. profit, as measured in traditional economic way, is essential. unless you have a trust fund.
the background motivation for that point of view are my 2 kids and a wife who would lose all respect for me if i treated my career as a hobby - where i made money for other people but not for us just to be satisfied in a job well done. such an approach is neither necessary nor sufficient.
profit is not a bad word......
i have dealt with clients that had no idea on the cost of things..... some thought they could do a bathroom renovation for 2g's ...along those lines....
profit is there to buy other items and grow...and survive in the low times/etc......
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.