CoContest allows customers wanting to refurbish an existing space to put their project out to architects and designers, who in turn submit their design proposals [...]
Nine lawmakers – eight of them architects – have issued a parliamentary proposal urging the Economic Development and Justice Ministries to crack down on the crowdsourcing website, which they said was carrying out an illegal intermediation activity and denigrating professional architects in its publicity
— goodgearguide.com.au
Any business that's praised for being "disruptive" is bound to cause controversy – or else that establishment probably wasn't worth disrupting. CoContest, an Italian startup that aims to connect homeowners to a competitively-priced international roster of architects and designers, has received praise for "its ability to disrupt the traditional workflow of architectural design services, transforming it from a local to an international service; from a time consuming activity to a fast and efficient process, and from an expensive service to an affordable one." Mountain View based incubator 500 Startups invited CoContest to join its ranks this year. But the atmosphere in Italy recently became far less encouraging.
Inspiration for CoContest came from a bloated population of Italian architects and interior designers – according to a 2014 infographic, Italy has an architect for every 414 people (the US has one for every 1,300). CoContest creators Filippo (an architect) and Federico Schiano di Pepe noticed that there were simply too many young architecture/interior design graduates in Europe for the few willing to hire (or afford) them, so they sought to bring the competition model used by large institutions to the domestic market. And while the company is seeking to grow worldwide, Italian lawmakers are trying to shut it down.
As goodgearguide.com reports, "The architects and planners' association, CNAPPC, has taken the case to the Antitrust Authority, complaining the website damages consumers and provides misleading information." Doesn't that outrage sound familiar? It's the cry that established industries sound (ahem taxis and hotels), invoking the virtuous consumer watchdog, when threatened by a competing model. CNAPPC also claims that CoContest "violates Italian laws and European directives" by not being able to guarantee the feasibility or liability of the designs it traffics.
Lately, there's been word along the architecture profession's grapevine for a kind of "Tinder for architects" – something that makes it easier for architects and clients to connect with one another in a competitive, online marketplace. If CoContest falls, something will take its place.
9 Comments
re: the Tinder for architects only word I am ware of is this thread started by Lian. But this would be specific to architecture schools and prospective students was my understanding...
If something like that would be developed for architects at large seems like it would make sense to be led by AAI to replace/supplement their Find an Architect tool.
Also, while I have certainly participate as a consumer in the share economy, not sure I agree with the general tone of this "It's the cry that established industries sound (ahem taxis and hotels), invoking the virtuous consumer watchdog" which seems to imply that disruption is always the greater good...
its funny how this is not acceptable while architects often pay fees to enter a competitions to get work.
No wonder they are up in arms - this is Uber for designers. You post a program online, a bunch of designers put up free work, and you select a winner who gets paid a nominal fee. Check out the prices. The how it works page is really insulting.
The race to the bottom appears to be nearing the finish line.
miles i am not to worried about it....intelligent and actually wealthy clients know the value of an engagement from the start with an experienced expert, and understand 1 hour of our time is well worth 200-400 an hour.......this is meant for the one off project by an average person who thinks they can do your job. i will gladly give up that market.
Nam: CoContest's method of connecting potential clients with designers isn't based on a sharing economy model. However, some of CNAPPC's arguments against CoContest sound familiar to the rhetoric that the taxi and hotel industries have leveraged against the sharing economy-likes of Uber and Airbnb, respectively. Namely, they claim that these "disruptive" sharing-economy businesses actually hurt the consumer, by not vetting service-providers appropriately, or bypassing regulations built for older models. They position themselves as the protector of the consumer, when often they simply don't want their business or access to the consumer to be threatened. I didn't mean to imply that just because they're likely playing the watchdog role to their own benefit, that the "disruptive" model is automatically better – just that skepticism is due whenever a for-profit entity claims they only have the consumers' interests at heart. Skepticism for the sharing economy too, always, for everything.
to olafs and Amelias point....there is a whole group of clientele that do not believe they need experts nor any vetting of the potential service provider and think themselves knowledgable enough to make the right decisions. in this regard the access is fine and its not disruptive but rather quite productive especially for the client and the service provider who is open to the process.
The guy on Craigslist who undercut the architect with plans for $.08 / sq.ft. now has some serious competition. Some Indian and Pakistani sweat shops will no doubt get set up to crank out multiple designs for every project in an attempt to increase the odds of winning.
Gotta love the problems they point out trying to sell the service:
Working directly with a designer requires a lot of back-and-forth communication. This can become stressful and often compromises your original idea.
So the 'benefit' is some anonymous CAD monkey in Bangladesh pumping out exactly what you want without concern for cost, construction, practicality, etc.
It's cheap, it must be good!
LOL
ha. this is kinda like elance.com.
I think that this "tinder for architects" really wont hurt any kind of established architecture firm, but rather poses a huge threat to newer/smaller boutique firms. A site that this reminds me of is http://99designs.com/, which usually produces very nice designs and has relatively fair pricing, but ends up hurting the graphic design market. The problem with this is that there are usually 30+ designs being entered and only one can win. With this model, statistically speaking, your firm will only execute 1/30 of the designs you propose.
Smaller/newer architecture firms will have this kind of site as a competitor to them and therefor will need to compete for these jobs, making them do much more work for very little pay-off. I haven't looked much into how the company is aiming to operate exactly, but I think this may be the route it ends up going. Generally good designs, but detrimental to small firms.
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.