I am working in a firm for the past couple of months... My experience in an office is limited to a few years or so .There is a Senior Designer, who does most of the designs, his abilities, I feel are at par with any reasonably good designer. On this particular project, he won the competition through his proposal . During the programming phase, two options were presented to the client, one his and the other a team members. IMHO, the other proposal was completely lacking in any sophistication, felt like a second year design proposal. The clients liked that one..is this how it works..bad designs shown to non- discerning clients. I hope not, I hope as architects, the one aspect that we still should have control over is the design concept..I am most probably wrong..love some opinions and info. on how it works in other offices, which are not star architects;)
senjohnblutarsky
Apr 14, 15 1:04 pm
I used to have this weird idea that if I presented a color board I liked, and two really lousy ones to a client, they would pick the one I liked. In almost every instance, they chose one of the intentionally lousy color sets.
If you give a client a choice, lots of times they're going to make the one you don't agree with. Either you accept it because they pay the bills, or you get better at helping them make a choice.
likeit
Apr 14, 15 1:05 pm
On a new note, how do I remove my history, somebody please advise..I have a portfolio link all my information.
null pointer
Apr 14, 15 1:10 pm
well.. this is going to backfire..
SneakyPete
Apr 14, 15 1:37 pm
Lawyer rule of thumb: Never ask a question you don't know the answer to.
Architect rule of thumb: Never present a design you don't think is any good.
Internet rule of thumb: Never post something you can't have exposed in real life.
natematt
Apr 14, 15 1:37 pm
At least they decided. Sometimes they get deadlocked and it takes a year for a project to get started again or they just decide you should start over with a new design...
x-jla
Apr 14, 15 2:20 pm
NEVER present options....EVER....it always backfires and also makes all 3 look like suitable design solutions rather than THE BEST design solution.
,,,,
Apr 14, 15 2:42 pm
Architects choose a design based on what they feel are the inherent qualities of the design and clients almost invariably base their decisions on what they think it will cost or how much return on their investment will be. Quality might be a factor but not generally.
Also think Thomas Kinkade. It is just the nature of the business.
I take it that you have never experienced the awe and mystery of a value engineering meeting?
Carrera
Apr 14, 15 4:23 pm
I’ve done it both ways….presented 3-4 concepts, but all were acceptable to me and only on small stuff….big stuff you can’t afford that option and I simply sold the hell out of the one concept….presentation meetings were like seminars with design presidents, vernacular montages, walking through the thought process so by the time I was done they kind of had that “why didn’t I think of that” impression/look.
Larchinect
Apr 15, 15 1:03 am
we're working for a client now where he cant decide on an option--this is for his personal home. He has a3/4 acre undeveloped lot. He has tried working with architects previously to no avail. We got hired because we're good at rapid cycling, so we can present a handful of ideas quickly. We are also landscape architects, and part of our task is designing a believable and workable building massing to help get an architect on board. It will be interesting.
on the other hand, weve been working on planning concepts for our small downtown. The town engaged the public in the planning process and now we are stuck in an endless cycle of bad ideas.
In general I subscribe to the idea that its never a good idea to prsent bad concepts, youre client will inevitably choose the the poorest option.
bklyntotfc
Apr 15, 15 10:00 am
I had a similar situation a while back. After the client went with the least favorite of the three options we'd presented, on the way back to the office, my fresh-out-of-school employee asked if we were going to resign the commission because of this. This was my response:
1. Sure, but I'll have to lay you off, as I can't pay your salary without the revenue from this commission. He didn't like this idea.
2. While we have favorite options, we don't present bad options to clients.
3. Our job is a balance of educating clients, but also following their directives. We make the chosen option better, and if the opportunity presents itself, to constructively/professionally push the project in the direction of the unchosen favorite
3. Our job is also to find ways to make the chosen design as good as it can be.
4. We may find unseen opportunities for great design in the chosen scheme (we did).
midlander
Apr 15, 15 10:02 am
Having worked on the client side for a bit I'll say that sometimes we can see the nicer design, but the inelegant one actually meets our needs better. It's a shame when designers get too caught up on one scheme to think about it from the owner's perspective- the result of that is usually a functional but ugly building.
@OP It sounds like there should be someone more senior in your office (a vp or principal) overseeing the work of all the designers. This person presumably saw value in both schemes and could probably explain to you why the second scheme was included. Hopefully the more talented designer will take charge and develop the scheme into something satisfying which does what the owner wanted.
geezertect
Apr 16, 15 9:42 pm
The clients liked that one..is this how it works..bad designs shown to non- discerning clients. I hope not, I hope as architects, the one aspect that we still should have control over is the design concept
The one with the gold makes the rules. Never forget, the building doesn't belong to you. It belongs to your client. You can try to sell them on something better, but in the end it is their money and their decision. As was said in The Godfather, it's nothing personal; it's just business. Don't get too emotionally involved, or you'll go crazy.
quizzical
Apr 17, 15 11:57 am
As architects, we often fall into the trap of believing that the quality of our work is self-evident - even to non-discerning clients. Doing so is huge mistake.
I've spent a good part of my career on the owner's side of the table. In that role, I want to see multiple schemes during the schematic design phase. But, I also expect my architect to explain the virtues of each scheme, and - if they have a strong preference for one - to explain fully why it's in my best interests to adopt that scheme. That explanation needs to include probable cost implications and how those additional costs (if any) will generate higher returns to me and my partners. Being 'sexier' simply isn't enough. Lower ROI is the kiss of death.
Good schemes are not adopted simply because they're 'good' -- they're adopted because the architect SELLS the concept in a way that convinces the client that's the way to go.
geezertect
Apr 17, 15 1:38 pm
^ Well said.
geezertect
Apr 17, 15 1:44 pm
quizzical: I agree totally. The problem with architects' education is that when we first learn to sell our ideas it is to an architecture jury, i.e. professors of architecture. Our first exposure to real world clients who don't already speak our lingo and appreciate what we are trying to do is always a shock. Not sure what can be done about it. Patients are too worried to question their doctor, and accounting clients are too baffled or bored to question their tax attorney, but everybody thinks they can do our job. How many times have we heard, "I don't know anything about architecture but I know what I like"?
3tk
Apr 17, 15 1:57 pm
^quizzical is right.
Sell your product (if you're not the partner in charge, give them the material they need to sell it), but also have alternatives that you explored (so they know you've considered them) at least on the side with the pro/cons of each one (weighing heavier on the cons). The key in any business is understanding the client and tailoring your work to their needs
I am working in a firm for the past couple of months... My experience in an office is limited to a few years or so .There is a Senior Designer, who does most of the designs, his abilities, I feel are at par with any reasonably good designer. On this particular project, he won the competition through his proposal . During the programming phase, two options were presented to the client, one his and the other a team members. IMHO, the other proposal was completely lacking in any sophistication, felt like a second year design proposal. The clients liked that one..is this how it works..bad designs shown to non- discerning clients. I hope not, I hope as architects, the one aspect that we still should have control over is the design concept..I am most probably wrong..love some opinions and info. on how it works in other offices, which are not star architects;)
I used to have this weird idea that if I presented a color board I liked, and two really lousy ones to a client, they would pick the one I liked. In almost every instance, they chose one of the intentionally lousy color sets.
If you give a client a choice, lots of times they're going to make the one you don't agree with. Either you accept it because they pay the bills, or you get better at helping them make a choice.
On a new note, how do I remove my history, somebody please advise..I have a portfolio link all my information.
well.. this is going to backfire..
Lawyer rule of thumb: Never ask a question you don't know the answer to.
Architect rule of thumb: Never present a design you don't think is any good.
Internet rule of thumb: Never post something you can't have exposed in real life.
At least they decided. Sometimes they get deadlocked and it takes a year for a project to get started again or they just decide you should start over with a new design...
NEVER present options....EVER....it always backfires and also makes all 3 look like suitable design solutions rather than THE BEST design solution.
Architects choose a design based on what they feel are the inherent qualities of the design and clients almost invariably base their decisions on what they think it will cost or how much return on their investment will be. Quality might be a factor but not generally.
Also think Thomas Kinkade. It is just the nature of the business.
I take it that you have never experienced the awe and mystery of a value engineering meeting?
I’ve done it both ways….presented 3-4 concepts, but all were acceptable to me and only on small stuff….big stuff you can’t afford that option and I simply sold the hell out of the one concept….presentation meetings were like seminars with design presidents, vernacular montages, walking through the thought process so by the time I was done they kind of had that “why didn’t I think of that” impression/look.
we're working for a client now where he cant decide on an option--this is for his personal home. He has a3/4 acre undeveloped lot. He has tried working with architects previously to no avail. We got hired because we're good at rapid cycling, so we can present a handful of ideas quickly. We are also landscape architects, and part of our task is designing a believable and workable building massing to help get an architect on board. It will be interesting.
on the other hand, weve been working on planning concepts for our small downtown. The town engaged the public in the planning process and now we are stuck in an endless cycle of bad ideas.
In general I subscribe to the idea that its never a good idea to prsent bad concepts, youre client will inevitably choose the the poorest option.
I had a similar situation a while back. After the client went with the least favorite of the three options we'd presented, on the way back to the office, my fresh-out-of-school employee asked if we were going to resign the commission because of this. This was my response:
1. Sure, but I'll have to lay you off, as I can't pay your salary without the revenue from this commission. He didn't like this idea.
2. While we have favorite options, we don't present bad options to clients.
3. Our job is a balance of educating clients, but also following their directives. We make the chosen option better, and if the opportunity presents itself, to constructively/professionally push the project in the direction of the unchosen favorite
3. Our job is also to find ways to make the chosen design as good as it can be.
4. We may find unseen opportunities for great design in the chosen scheme (we did).
Having worked on the client side for a bit I'll say that sometimes we can see the nicer design, but the inelegant one actually meets our needs better. It's a shame when designers get too caught up on one scheme to think about it from the owner's perspective- the result of that is usually a functional but ugly building.
@OP It sounds like there should be someone more senior in your office (a vp or principal) overseeing the work of all the designers. This person presumably saw value in both schemes and could probably explain to you why the second scheme was included. Hopefully the more talented designer will take charge and develop the scheme into something satisfying which does what the owner wanted.
The clients liked that one..is this how it works..bad designs shown to non- discerning clients. I hope not, I hope as architects, the one aspect that we still should have control over is the design concept
The one with the gold makes the rules. Never forget, the building doesn't belong to you. It belongs to your client. You can try to sell them on something better, but in the end it is their money and their decision. As was said in The Godfather, it's nothing personal; it's just business. Don't get too emotionally involved, or you'll go crazy.
As architects, we often fall into the trap of believing that the quality of our work is self-evident - even to non-discerning clients. Doing so is huge mistake.
I've spent a good part of my career on the owner's side of the table. In that role, I want to see multiple schemes during the schematic design phase. But, I also expect my architect to explain the virtues of each scheme, and - if they have a strong preference for one - to explain fully why it's in my best interests to adopt that scheme. That explanation needs to include probable cost implications and how those additional costs (if any) will generate higher returns to me and my partners. Being 'sexier' simply isn't enough. Lower ROI is the kiss of death.
Good schemes are not adopted simply because they're 'good' -- they're adopted because the architect SELLS the concept in a way that convinces the client that's the way to go.
^ Well said.
quizzical: I agree totally. The problem with architects' education is that when we first learn to sell our ideas it is to an architecture jury, i.e. professors of architecture. Our first exposure to real world clients who don't already speak our lingo and appreciate what we are trying to do is always a shock. Not sure what can be done about it. Patients are too worried to question their doctor, and accounting clients are too baffled or bored to question their tax attorney, but everybody thinks they can do our job. How many times have we heard, "I don't know anything about architecture but I know what I like"?
^quizzical is right.
Sell your product (if you're not the partner in charge, give them the material they need to sell it), but also have alternatives that you explored (so they know you've considered them) at least on the side with the pro/cons of each one (weighing heavier on the cons). The key in any business is understanding the client and tailoring your work to their needs