are there any developers reading any of the posts critiquing bad architecture that is driven by financial reasons? What are your thoughts in what architects really think abiut your buildings?
midlander
Jun 6, 15 11:26 pm
I worked in-house for a commercial developer before returning to the design side last year.
Mostly such critiques strike me as a bit naive or uninformed. No building I worked on came up for published critique, so I have no personal reaction to this. I do think it's something many architects should understand better, because it can lead them to work more smoothly and yields better results in terms of design. The big firms like SOM, Fosters and now BIG generally do get this, and that's why they're so widely comissioned.
Few developers have cash on hand to build anything themselves - it's just too expensive. So they are always working with borrowed money and need to be very sure sales or leasing will bring in enough to pay that back, quickly. So all developers are essentially conservative, but the better ones find ways to work with architects who can make attractive buildings that provide some civic value beyond just tax revenue.
I take a dim view of institutions like the American Folk Art Musuem or Cooper Union who spend money on architecture without regard to the consequences for their budget. Architecture is a wonderful thing, but it needs to work without destroying the organizations that depend on it. A home that bleeds its owner dry may be beautiful, but it really isn't good.
Most really bad architecture is bad because no one in control cared, not because it was more profitable. Good buildings aren't necessarily more expensive than bad.
geezertect
Jun 7, 15 10:23 am
^ midlander: very well said!
Miles Jaffe
Jun 7, 15 11:24 am
I've worked for several developers - for them, bottom line was EVERYTHING. The only critique they care about is sales.
Design only exists as a marketing gimmick and construction is the bare minimum necessary to prop it up. They could care less about anything other than money, even on their own houses.
Miles Jaffe
Jun 7, 15 11:38 am
^ One of them told me that his first job was delivering payoffs in NYC. Let's just say it was a career-defining experience. His heroes were guys who chewed you down below cost. Believe it or not he was one of the better ones. Some of these guys will cut your throat and laugh all the way to the bank.
As to what they think about architects, it's either cheap is great or pay a premium for branding, which explains at least some shitty starchitecture.
quizzical
Jun 7, 15 12:26 pm
midlander: "Most really bad architecture is bad because no one in control cared, not because it was more profitable."
Having spent about 1/2 of my career in r.e. development, I can confirm midlander's statement reproduced immediately above. Poor design is not fundamentally a matter of being cheap -- it's more about whether the developer knows enough to realize that "good" design (or "better" design) actually can improve the ROI.
As for Bulgar's question "What are your thoughts on what architects really think about your buildings?" I would say that, in the vast majority of cases, developers could care less what architects think about the product being produced -- in the overall scheme of things, developers are going to care about what equity partners, lenders, and prospective buyers / tenants think about the product - those are the only opinions that really matter in the development process. Architects' attitudes on this matter are so far down the list as to be non-relevant.
However, if - in a consistent and reliable manner - architects could articulate, and demonstrate, a meaningful (read "economic") rationale for delivering better design in a quick and efficient manner, then developers might be more willing to listen to what we have to say on the matter.
Miles Jaffe
Jun 7, 15 1:42 pm
Better design
To developers that means featurization, amenities that increase sales & profit. To buyers it is the illusion of quality. Oh look, it has a hot tub!
sameolddoctor
Jun 7, 15 10:30 pm
I see a lot of developers are, in addition to all the other things said above, driven by "Trend". Thank heavens the trend is contemporary these days.
stone
Jun 7, 15 11:27 pm
^^^ I see a lot of architects who are, in addition to all the other things they may be, driven wholly by "Trend" - especially in the academic world.
So SOD, how does this make developers worse, much less more ignoble, than architects?
proto
Jun 8, 15 11:25 am
"featurization" is currently how almost all americans understand architecture (only exception: old civic buildings)
this is a direct result of how buildings at all scales are delivered
the general public is completely unaware that "spacemaking" or "urban design" or "architecture" affects their daily lives. Architects are left holding the "who cares" bag. Hopefully we don't drop it and we can try to educate the public on why good buildings are healthy for community and for business.
StarchitectAlpha
Jun 8, 15 9:02 pm
So I feel as though school leaves us with this feeling that every building should be and needs to be a piece of art and it's our job as architects to fight developers and owners because they are ignorant of this truth. This is ridiculous though, that's like saying every car needs to be an Audi or Beamer. Some things are just buildings, storage, cheap housing, not everything has the ability to be amazing because honestly it doesn't take much to completely ruin the numbers on a project. Why would you buy a home that loses you money? You wouldn't, you try and find a good neighborhood that appreciates in value over time, does that mean all you care about is money? No it just means you are smart with it. This profession is extremely arrogant about our role as this supposed guiding hand of society in our cities, have we forgotten it was architects who celebrated and pushed for the sprawled edge cities we see today? So yes you find people who want a Mercedes from time to time but don't get mad at people who only want or can only afford a Honda. Accept your primary role of just being a visual building contract creator. That's what we do. It's not the developers fault that they are trying to get a return that beats the average return on the market or bond fund, cuz if it doesn't , why build it?
are there any developers reading any of the posts critiquing bad architecture that is driven by financial reasons? What are your thoughts in what architects really think abiut your buildings?
I worked in-house for a commercial developer before returning to the design side last year.
Mostly such critiques strike me as a bit naive or uninformed. No building I worked on came up for published critique, so I have no personal reaction to this. I do think it's something many architects should understand better, because it can lead them to work more smoothly and yields better results in terms of design. The big firms like SOM, Fosters and now BIG generally do get this, and that's why they're so widely comissioned.
Few developers have cash on hand to build anything themselves - it's just too expensive. So they are always working with borrowed money and need to be very sure sales or leasing will bring in enough to pay that back, quickly. So all developers are essentially conservative, but the better ones find ways to work with architects who can make attractive buildings that provide some civic value beyond just tax revenue.
I take a dim view of institutions like the American Folk Art Musuem or Cooper Union who spend money on architecture without regard to the consequences for their budget. Architecture is a wonderful thing, but it needs to work without destroying the organizations that depend on it. A home that bleeds its owner dry may be beautiful, but it really isn't good.
Most really bad architecture is bad because no one in control cared, not because it was more profitable. Good buildings aren't necessarily more expensive than bad.
^ midlander: very well said!
I've worked for several developers - for them, bottom line was EVERYTHING. The only critique they care about is sales.
Design only exists as a marketing gimmick and construction is the bare minimum necessary to prop it up. They could care less about anything other than money, even on their own houses.
^ One of them told me that his first job was delivering payoffs in NYC. Let's just say it was a career-defining experience. His heroes were guys who chewed you down below cost. Believe it or not he was one of the better ones. Some of these guys will cut your throat and laugh all the way to the bank.
As to what they think about architects, it's either cheap is great or pay a premium for branding, which explains at least some shitty starchitecture.
midlander: "Most really bad architecture is bad because no one in control cared, not because it was more profitable."
Having spent about 1/2 of my career in r.e. development, I can confirm midlander's statement reproduced immediately above. Poor design is not fundamentally a matter of being cheap -- it's more about whether the developer knows enough to realize that "good" design (or "better" design) actually can improve the ROI.
As for Bulgar's question "What are your thoughts on what architects really think about your buildings?" I would say that, in the vast majority of cases, developers could care less what architects think about the product being produced -- in the overall scheme of things, developers are going to care about what equity partners, lenders, and prospective buyers / tenants think about the product - those are the only opinions that really matter in the development process. Architects' attitudes on this matter are so far down the list as to be non-relevant.
However, if - in a consistent and reliable manner - architects could articulate, and demonstrate, a meaningful (read "economic") rationale for delivering better design in a quick and efficient manner, then developers might be more willing to listen to what we have to say on the matter.
Better design
To developers that means featurization, amenities that increase sales & profit. To buyers it is the illusion of quality. Oh look, it has a hot tub!
I see a lot of developers are, in addition to all the other things said above, driven by "Trend". Thank heavens the trend is contemporary these days.
^^^ I see a lot of architects who are, in addition to all the other things they may be, driven wholly by "Trend" - especially in the academic world.
So SOD, how does this make developers worse, much less more ignoble, than architects?
"featurization" is currently how almost all americans understand architecture (only exception: old civic buildings)
this is a direct result of how buildings at all scales are delivered
the general public is completely unaware that "spacemaking" or "urban design" or "architecture" affects their daily lives. Architects are left holding the "who cares" bag. Hopefully we don't drop it and we can try to educate the public on why good buildings are healthy for community and for business.
So I feel as though school leaves us with this feeling that every building should be and needs to be a piece of art and it's our job as architects to fight developers and owners because they are ignorant of this truth. This is ridiculous though, that's like saying every car needs to be an Audi or Beamer. Some things are just buildings, storage, cheap housing, not everything has the ability to be amazing because honestly it doesn't take much to completely ruin the numbers on a project. Why would you buy a home that loses you money? You wouldn't, you try and find a good neighborhood that appreciates in value over time, does that mean all you care about is money? No it just means you are smart with it. This profession is extremely arrogant about our role as this supposed guiding hand of society in our cities, have we forgotten it was architects who celebrated and pushed for the sprawled edge cities we see today? So yes you find people who want a Mercedes from time to time but don't get mad at people who only want or can only afford a Honda. Accept your primary role of just being a visual building contract creator. That's what we do. It's not the developers fault that they are trying to get a return that beats the average return on the market or bond fund, cuz if it doesn't , why build it?
developing ninja skills....