«
»
6 comments

Is the profession hurting it’s own image?

2010
06.09
Step Up

Step Up on Fifth Receives 2010 AIA National Honor Award for Architecture

I think the American Institute of Architects (of which I am a member) tries to focus on “trendy” architecture to the detriment of the overall profession.  The project shown here is a recipient of an honor award and I don’t know why…  I mean, there are some features that may be great, but to me this looks like a 1950′s hotel that got a bad paint job.  Really, why are these things being built?  What client has the money to let this get designed and constructed and didn’t think about the way this would look 5 years from now?  This type of fad laden design will appear as out of style in 5 years as your parachute pants and the lines cut into your eyebrows.  Don’t you realize buildings are harder to change than your wardrobe? Why would you spend so much money on a project that you won’t be able to sell or rent when it becomes outdated before the first lease is up?

There are a small handful of “starchitects” who get the big commissions, make a ton of money, employ hundreds of staff members, and produce crap.  These architects become famous because their work has become a commodity – like your high-end television or that new iPad.  Shiny metal cladding over a crumpled metal structure is getting old as is the square all white metal panel skins.  Just because you’re known for these iconic materials, doesn’t mean they are appropriate for every project on every site in every climate. It almost seems as if you are too lazy to look at other materials and construction details, so you just keep using the same library of cad details on all your projects.  OK, so maybe that’s not fair, but if we as a profession keep falling all over ourselves to reward projects that don’t stick to budget, don’t make use of local materials, ignore the existing culture of the very urban fabric which we wish to interact with and influence, and require expensive studies and alterations after construction to make them bearable, why should we expect the general public to appreciate our trade?

The art of architecture is extremely important, don’t get me wrong, but we as a profession need to be better about business of architecture.  If our “best” architects are doing projects that are over budget, off schedule, cost tons to fix, feel out of place, and look outdated shortly after construction, the rest of us “regular” architects are going to find it harder and harder to convince clients that we offer a service of value.



If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 9th, 2010 at 11:00 AM and is filed under architecture, criticism, the profession. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Donna

    I am no expert, but that building is butt ugly! I have seen buildings that were so amazing that it just takes your breath away. This one reminds me of a over crowded city anywhere in the world.

    • http://architectblog.org Brian V from ArchitectBlog.org

      Exactly! I don’t know what they were thinking – you don’t go retro to a time period in which architecture had a lot of really ugly buildings put up (the 1960′s +/- 10 years!). Most of those buildings are an eyesore now and are being renovated or torn down because of their poor design and construction.

  • Monique

    Okay, this buiiding is incredibly ugly…we had two buildings like this on my college campus and they always stuck out because they were surrounded by really nice brick and stone traditional buildings.

    But my question is, is the commercialization of architecture (e.g., Frank Lloyd Wright stuff, Michael Graves stuff, etc.) an attempt to make the profession more “understandable” for laymen like me? And hasn’t it worked since I know who FLW and MG are?

  • architectblog

    Architecture is a creative art – not a designer label. You know a lot of brand names, but that doesn’t mean the clothes were custom tailored to fit you. When you spend $80 on a pair of jeans, then have to spend $20 getting them hemmed, you get irritated still. Your building or home should be custom tailored to you. And that’s my point – is it more important to be a recognized brand and then have to pay again to get it to fit you, or to be a custom fit from the beginning?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/architectblog Brian V

    Just because you know the Buckle brand name, doesn't mean they are custom tailored to fit you. When you buy expensive jeans and then have to pay even more money to get them altered to fit properly, it is annoying at best. The same goes for architecture. Just because you recognize a name doesn't mean that you're getting a custom build. Although FLW did a much better job of customization and site specific design than today's "starchitects," our society has become so commodity oriented, we think we can buy a FLW home and plop it wherever we want and it will be a perfect house for us. I'd rather have a custom suit tailored by a professional that no one else knew than an off the shelf [insert name of suit company, since I don't wear suits] that is the wrong fit, the wrong color, and itchy.

  • Pingback: Good Sculpture or bad architecture? « architectblog.org