I find it interesting how many of the top firms list all their projects, including the ones that were just ideas and never anything beyond that. Like "hey look we designed this really cool hotel that looks like it may tip over on the banks of the Nile river, its never going to be built but we did it!" All the collage type renderings and perspective views that look like vintage travel advertisement posters. Don't get me wrong, they are usually pretty cool, but what's the purpose of this work? I mean other than exposure here and there what are the benefits of firms spending time on this type of work? The love of it? The publicity if you win a competition? I feel like in a way, this type of artistic representation is really what is taught in school not like actually designing and coordinating to build a building.
How do other people feel about non-built work? What line do you draw in terms of calling something architecture or just art? Like theoretically if a licensed architect only does drawings but has never actually built anything is he still an architect? (in your own opinion not through NCARB or anything like that) Also, when firms do this type of work, is it completed, like do they have all the floor plans any everything thought out with real drawings or just presentation wise?
Miles Jaffe
Jul 12, 18 9:49 pm
Architecture is design, not art. There is a thread to that effect here somewhere.
Promoting unbuilt work makes you look like a failure. I've seen architect's websites where the only thing they have is unbuilt work. I'm guessing they do production for people with real projects.
Putting your ideas out there for everyone to take is a stupid idea. Some jackass could hire someone on Craigslist to draw it up. Kind of like like telling every idiot looking for a freebie here how to build his house.
I'm not a robot
Jul 12, 18 10:33 pm
If you can figure out how to run a profitable "ideas" office without actually building anything, then you're living the dream. less risk - less liability - all the money.
chigurh
Jul 13, 18 1:24 pm
worst idea ever...why don't you just masturbate for your entire life with no intention of doing the deed. no risk no reward.
I'm not a robot
Jul 13, 18 10:07 pm
Wanting to get something built is like having unprotected sex with the goal of having a baby. You better hope both parties want the baby - and no one has an STD.
randomised
Jul 13, 18 3:16 am
I think publishing unbuilt projects is a very smart way of claiming ideas, build an office narrative to frame actual built work and to get new commissions or be invited to competitions. Look only at OMA's unbuilt work in the early years, the Zeebrugge Sea Terminal, the Dutch Parliament renovation or the Jussieu library, hell even Koolhaas' AA thesis Exodus. Publish whatever helps you build your story and convince your potential clients, even just a napkin sketch might do the trick.
randomised
Jul 13, 18 8:49 am
My point exactly.
Also, if you need to worry about others stealing your ideas and getting them built...such a waste of time if you ask me. Although I'm sure Rem was pretty pissed off when Winy Maas built Villa VPRO (that basically launched MVRDV) after having worked on the Jussieu library for OMA.
Miles Jaffe
Jul 13, 18 9:11 am
The A in capital A architecture stands for asshole.
randomised
Jul 13, 18 9:19 am
Asshole architecture or Asshole architect?
Miles Jaffe
Jul 13, 18 10:42 am
They tend to go hand-in-hand.
randomised
Jul 13, 18 1:39 pm
Asshole is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
Miles Jaffe
Jul 14, 18 8:49 am
The reputation of most starchitects in the construction industry is absolute shit. And most starchitect clients are colossal assholes. Birds of a feather ...
JLC-1
Jul 13, 18 10:54 am
the only unbuilt work worth something is lebbeus' and antonio sant'elia.
gibbost
Jul 13, 18 11:01 am
It's been my experience that oftentimes 'unbuilt work' or items identified as 'on the boards' are projects that required a certain amount of effort on the architect's part, but never went anywhere. Beyond the control of the architect, the project was never built and therefore, slick images of the final product will never be available. If it's something you're proud of--something that shows the firm's capabilities--then don't be ashamed of including it in your portfolio.
However, as somebody already pointed out, a portfolio of nothing but renderings is most likely just a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Miles Jaffe
Jul 13, 18 12:44 pm
Listen up, people. You've now heard from the authority on unbuilt work.
randomised
Jul 13, 18 1:53 pm
I happen to like quondam's body of work and agree with him, don't know where all the disdain for unbuilt work is coming from...as if it is so easy to get clients to actually build explorative work, some people are not that fortunate, don't have the network or whatever.
Miles Jaffe
Jul 13, 18 10:53 pm
I don't have disdain for unbuilt work.
randomised
Jul 14, 18 5:42 am
My bad, I misinterpreted...
citizen
Jul 13, 18 2:53 pm
On the whole, most architectural work is unbuilt-- even apart from competitions and theoretical noodling. Consider all the dead ends of resold property, flaky clients, bankruptcies, corporate shifts, changed minds, cold feet, unpaid invoices, divorces, budget cuts, neighbor protests, zoning surprises and other factors that have killed projects.
Why not put some of the best-drawn of it into the portfolio?
citizen
Jul 13, 18 6:30 pm
Yeah... while built stuff is the true test, the notion that unbuilt projects have no place in demonstrating some talent is just silly, to my mind.
Archicore
Jul 13, 18 3:08 pm
I always really appreciated the look into a firms unbuilt work. It's a look at the firms potential, which I'm assuming is invaluable for those just starting out.
At the same time, I would agree that having a portfolio of unbuilt work looks suspicious. And of course, there's plenty of unbuilt junk that gets produced in schools that I'm sure most of us would wish would never be built. Sometimes ideas should stay ideas.
archi_dude
Jul 13, 18 3:29 pm
I’d say this was one of the most frustrating aspects of architecture to me. It demonstrated this situation that a lot of architects seemed to be stuck in which was not understanding the value a licensed professional brings to the public. People are not looking for architects to be explorative they are looking for help and guidance to build their project within their budget. However, so many architects it seemed took this approach of we are so smart and the owner doesn’t know what’s good for them and hijacked projects with their portfolio in mind, then were bewildered that so many of their “best” ideas went unbuilt.
Archicore
Jul 13, 18 3:50 pm
This is a really good point. I've always thought that there was an interesting rift between architect-client.
When you go to a doctor, and they tell you something. Generally you view their position as a professional to mean that they know what they're talking about.
How often do architects recommend something, and a client believes that it is not the right path to take? How valuable is a professional architects opinion comparatively to other professionals in other disciplines.
Miles Jaffe
Jul 13, 18 6:23 pm
A good architect puts the client's interest first.
Another failure of the Pritzker-prep architectural education system. And the #mefirst society as a whole.
Archicore
Jul 13, 18 7:01 pm
Less blue wall, red wall stuff. Say, as an architect, you knew that more SF per employee in an office building would raise productivity. In both situations I would say that the doctor/architect is trying to promote human health/productivity. But is the doctors advice seen as more valuable over that of the architect?
archi_dude
Jul 13, 18 7:47 pm
I think the solution is just taking back the CM role
I find it interesting how many of the top firms list all their projects, including the ones that were just ideas and never anything beyond that. Like "hey look we designed this really cool hotel that looks like it may tip over on the banks of the Nile river, its never going to be built but we did it!" All the collage type renderings and perspective views that look like vintage travel advertisement posters. Don't get me wrong, they are usually pretty cool, but what's the purpose of this work? I mean other than exposure here and there what are the benefits of firms spending time on this type of work? The love of it? The publicity if you win a competition? I feel like in a way, this type of artistic representation is really what is taught in school not like actually designing and coordinating to build a building.
How do other people feel about non-built work? What line do you draw in terms of calling something architecture or just art? Like theoretically if a licensed architect only does drawings but has never actually built anything is he still an architect? (in your own opinion not through NCARB or anything like that) Also, when firms do this type of work, is it completed, like do they have all the floor plans any everything thought out with real drawings or just presentation wise?
Architecture is design, not art. There is a thread to that effect here somewhere.
Promoting unbuilt work makes you look like a failure. I've seen architect's websites where the only thing they have is unbuilt work. I'm guessing they do production for people with real projects.
Putting your ideas out there for everyone to take is a stupid idea. Some jackass could hire someone on Craigslist to draw it up. Kind of like like telling every idiot looking for a freebie here how to build his house.
If you can figure out how to run a profitable "ideas" office without actually building anything, then you're living the dream. less risk - less liability - all the money.
worst idea ever...why don't you just masturbate for your entire life with no intention of doing the deed. no risk no reward.
Wanting to get something built is like having unprotected sex with the goal of having a baby. You better hope both parties want the baby - and no one has an STD.
I think publishing unbuilt projects is a very smart way of claiming ideas, build an office narrative to frame actual built work and to get new commissions or be invited to competitions. Look only at OMA's unbuilt work in the early years, the Zeebrugge Sea Terminal, the Dutch Parliament renovation or the Jussieu library, hell even Koolhaas' AA thesis Exodus. Publish whatever helps you build your story and convince your potential clients, even just a napkin sketch might do the trick.
My point exactly.
Also, if you need to worry about others stealing your ideas and getting them built...such a waste of time if you ask me. Although I'm sure Rem was pretty pissed off when Winy Maas built Villa VPRO (that basically launched MVRDV) after having worked on the Jussieu library for OMA.
The A in capital A architecture stands for asshole.
Asshole architecture or Asshole architect?
They tend to go hand-in-hand.
Asshole is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
The reputation of most starchitects in the construction industry is absolute shit. And most starchitect clients are colossal assholes. Birds of a feather ...
the only unbuilt work worth something is lebbeus' and antonio sant'elia.
It's been my experience that oftentimes 'unbuilt work' or items identified as 'on the boards' are projects that required a certain amount of effort on the architect's part, but never went anywhere. Beyond the control of the architect, the project was never built and therefore, slick images of the final product will never be available. If it's something you're proud of--something that shows the firm's capabilities--then don't be ashamed of including it in your portfolio.
However, as somebody already pointed out, a portfolio of nothing but renderings is most likely just a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Listen up, people. You've now heard from the authority on unbuilt work.
I happen to like quondam's body of work and agree with him, don't know where all the disdain for unbuilt work is coming from...as if it is so easy to get clients to actually build explorative work, some people are not that fortunate, don't have the network or whatever.
I don't have disdain for unbuilt work.
My bad, I misinterpreted...
On the whole, most architectural work is unbuilt-- even apart from competitions and theoretical noodling. Consider all the dead ends of resold property, flaky clients, bankruptcies, corporate shifts, changed minds, cold feet, unpaid invoices, divorces, budget cuts, neighbor protests, zoning surprises and other factors that have killed projects.
Why not put some of the best-drawn of it into the portfolio?
Yeah... while built stuff is the true test, the notion that unbuilt projects have no place in demonstrating some talent is just silly, to my mind.
I always really appreciated the look into a firms unbuilt work. It's a look at the firms potential, which I'm assuming is invaluable for those just starting out.
At the same time, I would agree that having a portfolio of unbuilt work looks suspicious. And of course, there's plenty of unbuilt junk that gets produced in schools that I'm sure most of us would wish would never be built. Sometimes ideas should stay ideas.
I’d say this was one of the most frustrating aspects of architecture to me. It demonstrated this situation that a lot of architects seemed to be stuck in which was not understanding the value a licensed professional brings to the public. People are not looking for architects to be explorative they are looking for help and guidance to build their project within their budget. However, so many architects it seemed took this approach of we are so smart and the owner doesn’t know what’s good for them and hijacked projects with their portfolio in mind, then were bewildered that so many of their “best” ideas went unbuilt.
This is a really good point. I've always thought that there was an interesting rift between architect-client.
When you go to a doctor, and they tell you something. Generally you view their position as a professional to mean that they know what they're talking about.
How often do architects recommend something, and a client believes that it is not the right path to take? How valuable is a professional architects opinion comparatively to other professionals in other disciplines.
A good architect puts the client's interest first.
Another failure of the Pritzker-prep architectural education system. And the #mefirst society as a whole.
Less blue wall, red wall stuff. Say, as an architect, you knew that more SF per employee in an office building would raise productivity. In both situations I would say that the doctor/architect is trying to promote human health/productivity. But is the doctors advice seen as more valuable over that of the architect?
I think the solution is just taking back the CM role