I feel that it there should be some laws in place that when a project is over a certain size, lets say anything over 2 million dollar budget, that the client must hire an architect with a architecture and architecture philosophy background to choose the architect and contractor who will do the job!
I do not feel that the general public has the 5 year design background and education to have a responsible eye in choosing what form and asthetic a building should be in order to be architecture.
Our exams should have a large portion based on what is or is not art. there are ways to test talent. And I do believe talent in art and archtecture is something that we have from our 5 year professional degrees.
while there are bodies in place (review committees, etc) that allow trained design professionals to participate as arbiters of design, really everyone feels that their taste in design is as valid and they are as qualified as anyone else to determine what's good and what's not. good luck convincing anyone that your opinion is more right.
and that's not just cynicism on my part. i'm not sure i would want to live in a community where architects were in the sole discretionary role regarding major architectural projects.
newsflash: some of our profession are less good at recognizing good than many of those without architectural degrees...
I feel strongly that an architect is better qualified to choose the architect and builder for a project than for someone who has no design background at all.
Public bid projects that go before a large review board should have at least more than half of the judges be architects scoring the design. and the scoring should at least have some catagory based on the design and form of the building. the important thing in schematic design is the strong concept. not complext formulas computing technical scores and cost and fees.... how does this even factor into choosing a good design?????
Architects need to have a bigger role over the process of getting something built. right now..it ike we're the middlemen drafting what an untrained client wants and stamping it through...city hall for permits
that's why we don't make enough money and or get enough respect.
more jobs created for architects to represent their client when choosing the architect to hire.
the more cool interesting buildings show up.. the more people will hire more architect to represent them in hiring the right architect for them..
i don't know who you are, lexi, but i'm guessing you're young. i used to have similar opinions.
what you're asking for is for architects to have authority like we did before we blew it some time in the 60s/70s - making a lot of things which architects convinced their clients were good architecture and which ended up being almost-uninhabitable borderline-inhumane knock-offs of master modernists. look around at everything you think is bad modernism and, chances are, it was built when we had exactly the kind of authority/opinion for which you're wishing.
imo, it's GOOD for us to have real people with real needs mitigating our architecture-centric tastes.
of course the other major factor has to do with who's paying. obviously we're at the mercy of those with money and the desire to build. money will always be a factor because if my architect/arbiter chose morphosis over louisville architects inc and morphosis' fee was 15% of construction cost and lai's fee was 4.5%, the chooser's decision would be a non-issue pretty quickly.
finally, if architects were choosing architects, what's to say that they wouldn't choose their buddies? and who chooses the architects who choose? there are plenty of mediocre architects in the profession that would be happy to choose other mediocre architects, plenty who would take advantage of their role, plenty of chosen architects who would drop the ball.
again, i'm assuming a certain youthful inexperience on your part. get out in the world and see how we get, keep, and get paid for jobs and then get back to us.
if you're older, experienced, and should know how things work, good luck.
lexi, I agree with everything Steven said and have to praise his patience in trying to explain it.
Think about this: what if you were an architect doing public school projects. Then your own child's school was planning an expansion and you had very strong feelings about what the design should accomplish based on your personal interaction with the facility. What if the group of architects chosen to decide who the designer should be thought your design was "bad". Would that be fair? In other words, would you enjoy being on the powerless end of the scenario you are proposing?
Yes, architects are better qualified, but what gives anyone the right to mandate that? Nothing. If you want to live in a dictatorial society based on visual judgements, I suggest you snuggle up to the ruler of some other country.
I'm just saying that as architects we should be proponents for a more important role for design in buildings.
For instance, in a schematic design proposal for a city job we recently prepared, there were only 15 points out of 100 that were based on design. and from the technical score it is put into a formula that has places a high importance on estimated cost of the project and construction schedule.
So really, in this schematic design proposal, the concept was really not important compared to a plain jane high techinical score needed to win the project. So hours contemplating the form and function and comfort and views and daylight for the people who would occupy the building may have been wasted :(
It would have been more efficient to just do a simple building as cheap as possible, just following the program and little thought on anything else... In my heart, and as an architect, I do not feel this is an ethical design approach..
But, what can you do? In this economy.. I have to remind myself that getting the job is the most important
"form and function and comfort and views and daylight for the people who would occupy the building"
with
"estimated cost of the project and construction schedule"
and then you would have a good project.
May times realistic constraints are overlooked when they can actually help drive you toward creative AND economical solutions. Look at their importances as guidelines to operate within, i guarantee you there are countless design opportunities within them.
Example:
Client: You have to use brick.
Bad designer: What! I can't believe your saying that! My stretched and woven onion skin is soooo much better, this project is going to suck!
Good designer: Ok, what can I do with brick? Vary the size, vary the spacing, will that let in more light? Can I rotate the brick? Can I offset it, step it out, step it in, etc.....
For instance, in a schematic design proposal for a city job we recently prepared, there were only 15 points out of 100 that were based on design. and from the technical score it is put into a formula that has places a high importance on estimated cost of the project and construction schedule.
you forgot points for how well connected the developer is to local politicians...
welcome to the wonderful world of developer-centric competitions - whatever government agency is sponsoring the competition really mostly cares about how much revenue your project is going to generate immediately. your imagery plays a factor in their decision only after they've judged the project on the $$ and the design/project narrative.
they typically do care about design - but mostly in the way the building/project functions and how it impacts the immediate community. They understand that after they've chosen your team things are going to change drastically once reality sets in, so they won't place much credence on the pretty pictures that you worked so hard on. if you are selected, they might actually make you change the design completely and take the better elements from other people's submissions.
They aren't going to pick a project on design merits only because they want to make sure your team isn't going to go bankrupt or end up charging them 100-times the original budget... no matter how awesome your design is, if your team consists of dubious characters there's no way in hell you're winning.
in other words - they are selecting the TEAM, not your design. you could be the most famous architect in the world, but if your developer is someone like bernie madoff - you aren't going to win.
Can anybody define aesthetics? If you think something is not so aesthetically pleasing, some others will....so just having a "background" in some architecture philosphy does not make it right or aesthetically pleasing. Just get over it! But then again, if you are in the indudstry for a long time you will get used to it. We all know that our industry is so subjective and that being a good "salesman" of architectue will get your "aesthetically" beautiful buildings/structures built.
i cant believe people still want to design cities at one go. most architects and developers think they are the new haussmann. a schematic design for a city. this is the stuff that turns my stomach, in a bad way.
lexi, surely your 5 years of architectural education has taught you that design is very subjective. true, i believe some things are relevant today while other things are irrelevant, and i have strong ideas and opinions about them, but i accept that we do not live in a homogeneous space, neither do i want us to live in one. i pursue wat i think is relevant, and try to fight what i think is irrelevant as much as i can, but if you make it a point, then it is a losing battle, focus on making your work better, eventually, the (relevant) creme will rise to the top.
lexi, there are a lot folks here who are simply jaded. i agree with most of what you are saying. when architects select other architects for projects, the result is generally a much higher level of design. i would call this design advocacy, and i have a suspicion this role may be growing in demand. i have seen several clients hiring architects into owner's rep positions to get the highest level of design out of a project. now it does take a certain client to have this much faith and foresight in the power of good design (i've seen it most often in the non-profit, government, and religious sectors, but some in the private sector are buying in as well), but i think these clients are well rewarded for their appreciation of good design. i would highly encourage you to pursue this, if this is an interest of yours. architects need design advocates to overcome so much of the contractor-driven schlock we see out there today.
jafidler's description of how design advocacy can work is a good one... and that kind of scenario happens often. you just can't require it all over: it requires that there be some demand for it, whether from a private client, a public group, a deed restriction, whatever.
I will be graduating soon from a 5 year program with PLENTY of people who have no idea of what they are doing. To see them be in charge of a communities 'aesthetic' would make me very uncomfortable.
I have a sneaking suspicion that we students often have no idea what we are talking about.
I have a sneaking certainty that you students often have no idea what you are talking about.
i am also pretty certain i should not be trusted with a loaded aesthetic at 100 yards.
while i understand the motivation for this kind of oversight it usually leads to totally suck-titude when enacted. rome and milan are awesomely preserved aesthetical places, but damn those cities are boring...and dead too. at least architecturally. definitely not a good thing to impose too much limitations on human culture.
Don't worry, this is why we have internships in our profession and why a 40 year old in our field is considered "young". You have plenty of time to learn (more of) what you're talking about!
trace, your point is well taken - some people have an eye for design (i'm not going to touch the whole aesthetics debate) and others do not, whether you were trained as an architect or not. but let's not completely discredit ourselves or our training by saying that we do not have a specialized expertise that absolutely should be given a privileged position when it comes to the built environment. this is by no means to say that others' opinions are not to be considered, but at the end of the day, someone has to make a decision, and i would hope that that individual or board would be able to make an informed decision that places design as a high priority.
Sure. I just know, or have heard/dealt with so many that are stuck in their personal aesthetic world (typically the "Gehry sucks" crowd or the "that can't be done in the real world" crowd). This is usually on the conversative side, a la afraid of modernism or contemporary form.
There is a place and time for most types of architecture, just as almost any "style" (or "aesthetic") can be done well, even if I'd personally want to demo it.
I just want people to be careful about the assumption that an education equals good taste. There are plenty out there with stellar taste (think Dwell readers, Wall Paper gang, etc.) that are not architects and could probably design a better building than most architects anyway. Aesthetically speaking, of course.
Yep, education definitely does not equal taste. There are plenty of registered licensed professional "expert" architects who design crap. Aesthetically speaking, of course.
There are plenty out there with stellar taste (think Dwell readers, Wall Paper gang, etc.) that are not architects and could probably design a better building than most architects anyway.
not so sure about that. the midcentury mod crowd is not all that different than the architectural digest crowd, i.e. they are both infatuated with certain types of finishes, but really don't have much sense that architecture is actually more about space and detail. i know plenty of people who love modern design, but could not tell the difference between your average 60s ranch house and a case study house. or even if they could, they certainly could not design something of equal quality.
all of which is to say, i'm not sure why so many here want to discredit the role of architects when making design decisions. to use a phrase from dick cheney, sure there are a few bad apples amongst us, but by and large architects are far more qualified to make design decisions than your average person untrained in architecture/design.
15 points out of 100 for "design" sounds about right to me. As previous posters: construction cost matters, construction programme matters, pretty on the outside matters, longevity matters, fees matter, utility (program) matters, track record counts.
See the competition for the Paris opera house: blind judging. The judges thought that the chosen entry was by architect X, turns out it wasn't. Construction went well over budget and now the building is falling apart. The competition renderings still look great.
An aesthetic sensibility does not make an Architect, or a fashion/product/auto designer. Nor does it make you successful at business, or a good manager of people.
Going back to the original post, five years of study does not make you talented. Persistent maybe, talented, no. The "general public" don't often have a say in the bad architecture that you allude to either, and while you might not care for the local government planners or members of design review boards, or developers, and their career paths are unlikely to make them look at the long-term impact of their decisions, most of them have as much experience in the built environment as any Architect. Understand them, and the engineers, cost consultants, project managers, contractors, suppliers, and the contribution that they make to the end product and not only will you be a better architect, but you'll get more built, and you'll be surprised that you get 15 points and not 10.
Back to LB's post - "by and large architects are far more qualified to make design decisions than your average person untrained in architecture/design" - those decisions have implications, ramifications beyond aesthetics, and yes, that is the role of the architect, and that's why your fees might be 15%, and that's why you get 15/100 for design in the appraisal.
lexi I feel that it there should be some laws in place...
and if someone commits an aesthetic crime, what punitive measures would be taken against her/him? being indefinitely confined to the Fransworth house, reading Kant's Critique of Jugement over and over again and with L'Année dernière à Marienbad on an endless loop?
asthetics
I feel that it there should be some laws in place that when a project is over a certain size, lets say anything over 2 million dollar budget, that the client must hire an architect with a architecture and architecture philosophy background to choose the architect and contractor who will do the job!
I do not feel that the general public has the 5 year design background and education to have a responsible eye in choosing what form and asthetic a building should be in order to be architecture.
Our exams should have a large portion based on what is or is not art. there are ways to test talent. And I do believe talent in art and archtecture is something that we have from our 5 year professional degrees.
while there are bodies in place (review committees, etc) that allow trained design professionals to participate as arbiters of design, really everyone feels that their taste in design is as valid and they are as qualified as anyone else to determine what's good and what's not. good luck convincing anyone that your opinion is more right.
and that's not just cynicism on my part. i'm not sure i would want to live in a community where architects were in the sole discretionary role regarding major architectural projects.
newsflash: some of our profession are less good at recognizing good than many of those without architectural degrees...
I have a simple rule: never trust the aesthetic of anyone who cannot spell aesthetic.
I feel strongly that an architect is better qualified to choose the architect and builder for a project than for someone who has no design background at all.
Public bid projects that go before a large review board should have at least more than half of the judges be architects scoring the design. and the scoring should at least have some catagory based on the design and form of the building. the important thing in schematic design is the strong concept. not complext formulas computing technical scores and cost and fees.... how does this even factor into choosing a good design?????
Architects need to have a bigger role over the process of getting something built. right now..it ike we're the middlemen drafting what an untrained client wants and stamping it through...city hall for permits
that's why we don't make enough money and or get enough respect.
more jobs created for architects to represent their client when choosing the architect to hire.
the more cool interesting buildings show up.. the more people will hire more architect to represent them in hiring the right architect for them..
i don't know who you are, lexi, but i'm guessing you're young. i used to have similar opinions.
what you're asking for is for architects to have authority like we did before we blew it some time in the 60s/70s - making a lot of things which architects convinced their clients were good architecture and which ended up being almost-uninhabitable borderline-inhumane knock-offs of master modernists. look around at everything you think is bad modernism and, chances are, it was built when we had exactly the kind of authority/opinion for which you're wishing.
imo, it's GOOD for us to have real people with real needs mitigating our architecture-centric tastes.
of course the other major factor has to do with who's paying. obviously we're at the mercy of those with money and the desire to build. money will always be a factor because if my architect/arbiter chose morphosis over louisville architects inc and morphosis' fee was 15% of construction cost and lai's fee was 4.5%, the chooser's decision would be a non-issue pretty quickly.
finally, if architects were choosing architects, what's to say that they wouldn't choose their buddies? and who chooses the architects who choose? there are plenty of mediocre architects in the profession that would be happy to choose other mediocre architects, plenty who would take advantage of their role, plenty of chosen architects who would drop the ball.
again, i'm assuming a certain youthful inexperience on your part. get out in the world and see how we get, keep, and get paid for jobs and then get back to us.
if you're older, experienced, and should know how things work, good luck.
lexi, I agree with everything Steven said and have to praise his patience in trying to explain it.
Think about this: what if you were an architect doing public school projects. Then your own child's school was planning an expansion and you had very strong feelings about what the design should accomplish based on your personal interaction with the facility. What if the group of architects chosen to decide who the designer should be thought your design was "bad". Would that be fair? In other words, would you enjoy being on the powerless end of the scenario you are proposing?
aesthetic is a different branch of philosophy, wonder how many architects had actually studied it before using this word...
many architects thought aesthetic = visually pleasing, sad but true....
or aesthetic= elite taste....
Aspect is spot-on. Many people use the word incorrectly.
Yes, architects are better qualified, but what gives anyone the right to mandate that? Nothing. If you want to live in a dictatorial society based on visual judgements, I suggest you snuggle up to the ruler of some other country.
lexi -- I have two words for you: Albert Speer
You should be a licensed Aesthete, minimally ;)
I'm just saying that as architects we should be proponents for a more important role for design in buildings.
For instance, in a schematic design proposal for a city job we recently prepared, there were only 15 points out of 100 that were based on design. and from the technical score it is put into a formula that has places a high importance on estimated cost of the project and construction schedule.
So really, in this schematic design proposal, the concept was really not important compared to a plain jane high techinical score needed to win the project. So hours contemplating the form and function and comfort and views and daylight for the people who would occupy the building may have been wasted :(
It would have been more efficient to just do a simple building as cheap as possible, just following the program and little thought on anything else... In my heart, and as an architect, I do not feel this is an ethical design approach..
But, what can you do? In this economy.. I have to remind myself that getting the job is the most important
Maybe the most important for you....
Meanwhile, the public suffers in your building(s) for the next 50 or 80 years. You said it, not me.
Perhaps you could marry:
"form and function and comfort and views and daylight for the people who would occupy the building"
with
"estimated cost of the project and construction schedule"
and then you would have a good project.
May times realistic constraints are overlooked when they can actually help drive you toward creative AND economical solutions. Look at their importances as guidelines to operate within, i guarantee you there are countless design opportunities within them.
Example:
Client: You have to use brick.
Bad designer: What! I can't believe your saying that! My stretched and woven onion skin is soooo much better, this project is going to suck!
Good designer: Ok, what can I do with brick? Vary the size, vary the spacing, will that let in more light? Can I rotate the brick? Can I offset it, step it out, step it in, etc.....
you forgot points for how well connected the developer is to local politicians...
welcome to the wonderful world of developer-centric competitions - whatever government agency is sponsoring the competition really mostly cares about how much revenue your project is going to generate immediately. your imagery plays a factor in their decision only after they've judged the project on the $$ and the design/project narrative.
they typically do care about design - but mostly in the way the building/project functions and how it impacts the immediate community. They understand that after they've chosen your team things are going to change drastically once reality sets in, so they won't place much credence on the pretty pictures that you worked so hard on. if you are selected, they might actually make you change the design completely and take the better elements from other people's submissions.
They aren't going to pick a project on design merits only because they want to make sure your team isn't going to go bankrupt or end up charging them 100-times the original budget... no matter how awesome your design is, if your team consists of dubious characters there's no way in hell you're winning.
in other words - they are selecting the TEAM, not your design. you could be the most famous architect in the world, but if your developer is someone like bernie madoff - you aren't going to win.
Can anybody define aesthetics? If you think something is not so aesthetically pleasing, some others will....so just having a "background" in some architecture philosphy does not make it right or aesthetically pleasing. Just get over it! But then again, if you are in the indudstry for a long time you will get used to it. We all know that our industry is so subjective and that being a good "salesman" of architectue will get your "aesthetically" beautiful buildings/structures built.
i cant believe people still want to design cities at one go. most architects and developers think they are the new haussmann. a schematic design for a city. this is the stuff that turns my stomach, in a bad way.
lexi, surely your 5 years of architectural education has taught you that design is very subjective. true, i believe some things are relevant today while other things are irrelevant, and i have strong ideas and opinions about them, but i accept that we do not live in a homogeneous space, neither do i want us to live in one. i pursue wat i think is relevant, and try to fight what i think is irrelevant as much as i can, but if you make it a point, then it is a losing battle, focus on making your work better, eventually, the (relevant) creme will rise to the top.
lexi, there are a lot folks here who are simply jaded. i agree with most of what you are saying. when architects select other architects for projects, the result is generally a much higher level of design. i would call this design advocacy, and i have a suspicion this role may be growing in demand. i have seen several clients hiring architects into owner's rep positions to get the highest level of design out of a project. now it does take a certain client to have this much faith and foresight in the power of good design (i've seen it most often in the non-profit, government, and religious sectors, but some in the private sector are buying in as well), but i think these clients are well rewarded for their appreciation of good design. i would highly encourage you to pursue this, if this is an interest of yours. architects need design advocates to overcome so much of the contractor-driven schlock we see out there today.
wait - are you talking about a city-owned parcel that they are trying to develop or an actual publicly funded project?
jafidler's description of how design advocacy can work is a good one... and that kind of scenario happens often. you just can't require it all over: it requires that there be some demand for it, whether from a private client, a public group, a deed restriction, whatever.
poop876> start from the idea of "virtue" in Greek philosophy and how it carries through to contemporary world as in francis bacon paintings...
aesthetic never meant to be for architects to romantize... sad but true
when i was in school, we almost banned from using the word "aesthetic" except for theories class.
Dont' forget that ugly buildings are made by architects too.
You can't assume that just because someone has degree in architecture that they will choose what you think is 'good'.
Just like music (or any creative endeavor), there are those that can play the instrument but either have no talent, bad taste or both.
I will be graduating soon from a 5 year program with PLENTY of people who have no idea of what they are doing. To see them be in charge of a communities 'aesthetic' would make me very uncomfortable.
I have a sneaking suspicion that we students often have no idea what we are talking about.
Just one of three dictionary.com definitions of aesthetic:
"pertaining to, involving, or concerned with pure emotion and sensation as opposed to pure intellectuality"
So, um, stuff your theory.
I have a sneaking certainty that you students often have no idea what you are talking about.
i am also pretty certain i should not be trusted with a loaded aesthetic at 100 yards.
while i understand the motivation for this kind of oversight it usually leads to totally suck-titude when enacted. rome and milan are awesomely preserved aesthetical places, but damn those cities are boring...and dead too. at least architecturally. definitely not a good thing to impose too much limitations on human culture.
life is dirty. disinfecting is not necessary.
Great name, awkeytect!
Don't worry, this is why we have internships in our profession and why a 40 year old in our field is considered "young". You have plenty of time to learn (more of) what you're talking about!
hell, i don't know what i'm talking about half the time. but i DO love to talk!
trace, your point is well taken - some people have an eye for design (i'm not going to touch the whole aesthetics debate) and others do not, whether you were trained as an architect or not. but let's not completely discredit ourselves or our training by saying that we do not have a specialized expertise that absolutely should be given a privileged position when it comes to the built environment. this is by no means to say that others' opinions are not to be considered, but at the end of the day, someone has to make a decision, and i would hope that that individual or board would be able to make an informed decision that places design as a high priority.
Sure. I just know, or have heard/dealt with so many that are stuck in their personal aesthetic world (typically the "Gehry sucks" crowd or the "that can't be done in the real world" crowd). This is usually on the conversative side, a la afraid of modernism or contemporary form.
There is a place and time for most types of architecture, just as almost any "style" (or "aesthetic") can be done well, even if I'd personally want to demo it.
I just want people to be careful about the assumption that an education equals good taste. There are plenty out there with stellar taste (think Dwell readers, Wall Paper gang, etc.) that are not architects and could probably design a better building than most architects anyway. Aesthetically speaking, of course.
Yep, education definitely does not equal taste. There are plenty of registered licensed professional "expert" architects who design crap. Aesthetically speaking, of course.
not so sure about that. the midcentury mod crowd is not all that different than the architectural digest crowd, i.e. they are both infatuated with certain types of finishes, but really don't have much sense that architecture is actually more about space and detail. i know plenty of people who love modern design, but could not tell the difference between your average 60s ranch house and a case study house. or even if they could, they certainly could not design something of equal quality.
all of which is to say, i'm not sure why so many here want to discredit the role of architects when making design decisions. to use a phrase from dick cheney, sure there are a few bad apples amongst us, but by and large architects are far more qualified to make design decisions than your average person untrained in architecture/design.
I second LB,
15 points out of 100 for "design" sounds about right to me. As previous posters: construction cost matters, construction programme matters, pretty on the outside matters, longevity matters, fees matter, utility (program) matters, track record counts.
See the competition for the Paris opera house: blind judging. The judges thought that the chosen entry was by architect X, turns out it wasn't. Construction went well over budget and now the building is falling apart. The competition renderings still look great.
An aesthetic sensibility does not make an Architect, or a fashion/product/auto designer. Nor does it make you successful at business, or a good manager of people.
Going back to the original post, five years of study does not make you talented. Persistent maybe, talented, no. The "general public" don't often have a say in the bad architecture that you allude to either, and while you might not care for the local government planners or members of design review boards, or developers, and their career paths are unlikely to make them look at the long-term impact of their decisions, most of them have as much experience in the built environment as any Architect. Understand them, and the engineers, cost consultants, project managers, contractors, suppliers, and the contribution that they make to the end product and not only will you be a better architect, but you'll get more built, and you'll be surprised that you get 15 points and not 10.
Back to LB's post - "by and large architects are far more qualified to make design decisions than your average person untrained in architecture/design" - those decisions have implications, ramifications beyond aesthetics, and yes, that is the role of the architect, and that's why your fees might be 15%, and that's why you get 15/100 for design in the appraisal.
***sorry I meant jafidler's post
lexi I feel that it there should be some laws in place...
and if someone commits an aesthetic crime, what punitive measures would be taken against her/him? being indefinitely confined to the Fransworth house, reading Kant's Critique of Jugement over and over again and with L'Année dernière à Marienbad on an endless loop?
i like turtles.
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.