|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
RSCarcht
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 79
Location: USA: RI, CT, NY, MA, FL
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:57 pm Post subject: Architecture: Commodity or Complex craft |
    |
|
Design Forum is an intersting realm: A place dedicated to the Art of Architecture but populated by clients and CAD sweat shops looking to do work in developing countries at low wages.
True architecture is a complex invention that solves site limitations, programmatic requirements, local code restrictions and construction requirements to make a building that can be used and enjoyed for many decades (if not longer).
Whether a house or office or school, every building is a major investment of time, energy and resources and the stakes for getting the design and construction right are huge and yet I keep seeing posts entitled "Why can't I get a design for a reasonable cost?!"
What is reasonable? An architectural fee of 8-10% of construction cost will often save the same amount by allowing for competitve bidding, which is only possible with a well considered and documented design, so the the design, experience and contacts that the architect brings to the project are more or less without cost in the final consideration. What could be more reasonable than that!
It is shocking how often a developer client will cut 5% out of the construction budget that will add 25% to to the long-term cost of maintaining or operating a building. I would love to see a debate on how the true value of architecture (as opposed to "building") can be better explained to the public at large and construction be made to better serve the long-term needs of the cultures in which they are built. Perhaps it is a tax on demolishing structures--kind of like the five cent deposit on soda cans, but on a much larger scale. It might help society better realize the cost of building poorly designed and shoddily constructed buildings which will need to be torn down and replaced long before a well-built, well-designed structures.
Another even better idea I've had is the "Ugly Tax"--each year at the polls the ugliest five buildings in any community are selected for a 5% tax increase and the five most beautiful buildings are voted a 5% tax decrease. This would compensate the community for having to look at the ugly buildings and compensate the owners who took the time and effort to enrich their communities with beautiful buildings. It would also get people to the polls to vote on something they REALLY care about, so voter participation would increase. Are there any attorneys out there who can rule on this legality of this concept?
_________________
Ross Sinclair Cann, AIA APA
http://www.a4arch.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1053
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, a simple internet search came up with some interesting figures. The UK's Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) made a recent assessment of mass housing developers and decided that only 18% of developments could be measured as 'good' or above. 29% were 'poor', so singling out the worst five would still leave an enormous pool of sh*te developments untouched.
[url]
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3081187[/url]
Personally I think a roving jury of design experts is one, but not the only (or best) way of improving design standards. We also need to improve the design knowledge of the ordinary punter more than anything else, starting at elementary school. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RSCarcht
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 79
Location: USA: RI, CT, NY, MA, FL
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: Encouraging good design |
|
|
We protect people from polution. We protect them form loud annoying noises. Governments set acceptable levels for about a million things. My Swiftian "modest proposal" is not about "fixing" the problem outright, but changing mindsets.
People know there is no penalty for building "ugly" so little thought goes into it. It is like the time before product liability! I have no doubt the pettiton process to establish 10 "beauty" contenders and 10 "ugly" contenders would spark thousands of conversations on the issue of good design in the community. The small tax benefit or cost to good and bad properties would be icing on the cake as far as I am concerned.
_________________
Ross Sinclair Cann, AIA APA
http://www.a4arch.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lekizz
millennium club
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 1053
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | People know there is no penalty for building "ugly" so little thought goes into it. |
I tend to disagree with that idea. For example, new city offices have to look smart to attract tenants. Tired, dated offices lie empty. 'Ugly' houses are less attractive to purchasers - there was a craze for artificial stone cladding on houses in the UK during the '80's but nowadays the cladding can knock thousands off the house price.
In addition, developers usually want to make a quick profit and move on. Buildings can be beautified in a superficial way using low quality cladding. It may look crisp and pleasant in the short term but it doesn't make it a best value solution.
I'm sure what I am trying to say is we need to choose different words to 'beautiful' and 'ugly'... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RSCarcht
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 79
Location: USA: RI, CT, NY, MA, FL
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:22 am Post subject: Beauty Contest |
|
|
You are right that Ugly and Beautiful may be the wrong words. I guess I am advocating for "timeless" design over "faddish" design. Today's beauty is tomorrow's ugly, so it is conceivable a building could both get a tax credit and later a tax penalty (or vice versa).
The "ugly tax" would stimulate debate and promote game playing where the buildings that attract positive public opinion (over the long-term ) are the winners.
_________________
Ross Sinclair Cann, AIA APA
http://www.a4arch.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Landy
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 444
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
why architecture has this never ending guilt trip over cost?
a BMW is a BMW and a Go-kart is a Go-kart...
Cheap solutions to our built environment will always be in a very thin line of authenticity, who agrees?
When Architecture is done good the numbers are always a side note... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Architorture
millennium club
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1376
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
that sounds a little too much like a blank check to say that budgets don't count...
part of the challenge of design is dealing with the constraints at hand- which includes money
people have a choice to buy a bmw or a go cart- its not right to give the go cart guy a bimmer and force him to pay for it when he didn't ask for it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDR
millennium club
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Posts: 1697
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Honesty and frankness are beautiful; deceit and vanity are ugly. Perhaps our efforts at public education can concentrate on that; many benefits can be imagined.
The wish for an unearned shortcut to the appearance of prosperity and "class" have led to many architectural outrages, phony and inappropriate cladding being only one. If clients and property owners could be persuaded that no apology is needed for a simple and well-made building of humble material, then we might be blessed with the full range of admirable structures, each reflecting the best that can be had at each "price point."
SDR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1776
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I think architecture has to be a reflection of the society which produces it. We are fat and we have fat buildings, frugality is not an admired trait so are houses are not frugal.
I have to agree with SDR, the only way to fully change what we have now is by doing a better job raising children.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1967
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So much for methodology (gnrrrrrr...ever see a BARCH go thru a shredder?) 
Before we start blaming society at large and the global village for the values (or lack thereof) beset by the evil that men do, we ought to remain focused on the profession of...whatever the hell architecture is supposed to be. Guns don't kill people...bullets do. 
| Quote: | | I would love to see a debate on how the true value of architecture (as opposed to "building") can be better explained to the public at large and construction be made to better serve the long-term needs of the cultures in which they are built. |
I feel there is a problem with the substitution of "educating the public" with "building better environments" and architecture, itself. The entire process is not in the hands, nor is the responsibility, of the architect...alone. The architect does not establish the budget, usually not even the project and certainly cannot dictate the construction nor the use, and especially the maintenance and future reenovations....so how BIG of a role does the architect truly play in what we see as failures in the built environment. Should all architects stomp their feet, throw tantrums in order to make sure buildings qre built the way they ought to be?
There is a fine line between social engineering and dictatorship...or laissez-faire economics and chaos. And even then, both have resulted in wonderful projects throughtout the ages. And of course, we will eventually have to hash out the details of what constitutes architecture without architects...
Ugly tax is ripe for corruption...when it's a tax based completely on subjectivity. The whole process is satyrical really...I can see the checklist with subcategories: sexy, not too bad, kinda/sorta ugly, gag-me-with-a-spoon, FUGLY, hot, cute, quaint, dog, obscene, grotesque, love-it-but-not-sure-why....nothing that couldn't be swayed from the tax(wo)man by offering cheap quick sex to avoid the ugly tax...
In all seriousness, the general public almost never deals with the architect, except as some end-user to some by-product of value-engineered originally-beautiful designs by some under-paid, over-worked architect....
The Architects who have their sh...shtuff together are doing wonderful things! Let's not get bogged by the negativity. One way to get the public to at least show some curiosity is to celebrate the wonderful...I was always impressed by how much publicity Gehry's work got. I've never seen Joe-public so interested before...and suddenly, everyone's a critic again. I love it!
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1967
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WTF? does everyone host their own website now?
Bottom line: Architecture is the commodification of complex craft...
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 596
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
GP's in this country (UK) have just recently received something of a 200% pay hike to £100Kpa or thereabouts, putting them in line with mid-league lawyers I guess.
It strikes me that we, as architects, share with these guys a professional - as distinct from business - attitude which embraces the wider public good. Most of what we're proud of, and value, is based upon thinking widely and deeply about what we do and how we can do it better: rarely are we to be caught minimising our service and maximising our cut of any given deal. Oftentimes, we'll be in a room with Contractors who often come across as fearful of their positions to the extent of being in hock - or perceive themselves such - to the economic imperatives of business machinery where the bottom line is money and the question: where does the buck stop? Rarely do we have a discussion based upon the concept that we're all human beings in a society and our principle aim is to make the world a better place: where far-reaching notions of quality over-ride short-term profiteering.
If you go to a doctor, you don't screw the fee to the lowest comission on the drugs he's going to prescribe: you pay for a good doctor, trusting that this vaguely-defined quality will assist in you getting healthier in body.
If you go to a lawyer, you don't, if you can at all avoid it, go to the cheapest one. You go to the best one in the hope that her/his representation will do you the most good in whatever transaction or case is in hand. Again, at some point, you have to trust in a skill of theirs that you can only vaguely define.
Architects? All the time, it's a question of who's cheapest. Few clients seem to understand that by placing some trust in us will they reap rewards in excess of outlaying some extra in acquiring the best service.
How so? How come we continue to honour a trust - now only in order to preserve our personal self-respect - which isn't bestowed upon us? Isn't it about time we said: you guys have misconstrued a scenario and mis-placed us in the food chain: our patience is running out. For thirty years or more we have done far more than we're paid for out of good faith. But you guys have been taking the piss for too long.
Some days I think this whole thing just doesn't compute. I see humour in the absurdity but this is a serious matter. Surely some of us architects out there - deep thinking people - can take some time aside, devote some attention to it and, like we so often do in a chaotic procurement scenario, step in and SORT IT OUT.
Ooh, I feel better now. Apologies for straying off-topic. Now back to the coal-face... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1776
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
All else being equal I would choose the lowest priced doctor, lawyer, etc..
Architects are responsible for their own image and the publics perception of their value. Claiming the moral high ground (in my opinion) was never a good strategy.
Here in my area, no architect can deliver a better product at a price point that the average consumer is willing to pay than I can.
Does this mean I am providing a commodity?
I think not. I treat every house as a unique problem to be solved. It is simply my superior skill and performance and what I will accept as an income which allow me to provide plans at lower cost than competitors.
The average person does not highly value what architects are offering. This tells me that if architects want to compete for that market they are going to have to either raise the publics perception of their value or provide the public the services they are willing to pay for. Personally I think that both approaches to the problem need to be taken simultaneously.
There is no doubt that architecture is complex craft and in the case of stock plans also commodity.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 596
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
The way I see it is that an aspiration to provide better than competitors at a lower price makes sense in manufacturing, where the idea is to sell more of the products at this lower rate therefore upping the overall profit.
To market a bespoke service with this logic seems senseless, unless continuous employment just making a livable wage is your intention (which is a fair enough intention, but not what the highest earners work for). Rather, in a service economy, expertise is what is being sold and this expertise comes at a premium. That is, unless no-one appreciates what the expertise is, which seems to be the case with architects, aided and abetted by the fact that many architects sell service like product and drive down each other's prices so that they all end up just scraping that living. I see it as a hole to be somehow dug out of. If it were the truly creative artistic activity it's often trumpeted as, perhaps that would be its own reward (I think it would) but so oftens it's just grubby commercial enterprise, done badly (badly in the sense of commercial acuity, that is).
I don't doubt your expertise in the domestic market, CS, or disagree with your comments. However, one-off house construction isn't quite the same as management of multiple large scale projects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1967
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
There's a fundamental difference between producing a commodity and commodify-ing something...if a company builds widgets and sells them, that is the production of a commodity, however if someone is to turn (as an intrinsic value or a work of art) into a commodity ...
| Quote: | | M-W: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (as brand name) other than price |
...that is the act of repeating said valuable service or product for profit. The idea that Architecture has become a service-oriented business is what is the commodification; not the end product of the built environment. In other words, the “value” of Architecture is in the process of preparing, planning, designing…or in technical/legal terms, providing a set of construction documents suitable for bid, permitting and/or construction.
On another level, the idea of “cheapening” our services is only a business decision. Market forces are the major issue and are not limited to Architecture. However, the issue of “cheapening” our design and process is a professional one and THAT is the core of the problem. But it is still a service provided (commodification) and for profit. This is not to be confused with commoditization which is indeed the cheapening of goods…
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
