A New Message for Architecture?

Architecture has long been perceived by the general public as a profession best represented by widely publicized, high-ego architects (starchitects). Media attention, industry celebration, employee practices, and education all seem to be generally influenced by a very select few over the course of several decades. While alot of this design is certainly visually “interesting” does it
actually represent what the majority of architects do on a day to day basis? Is this how we want our entire industry to be understood and/or driven? Has this influence led our industry to operate within a business model that does not actually represent us? Do we want a different understanding of the architectural industry in the future?

I would like to revisit the lively conversation we had in our last session. We discussed the value of architects, public perception of the same, a few hot-button issues – recall the question “why does much of the general public object to paying architectural fees to actually CREATE the entire idea of the building but will think nothing of paying a realtor/broker’s fees to SELL that same building?” --- and other topics such as the Architect’s role in contributing to the community, educating the community as to what we can offer, non-traditional roles for architects, creating a new vision for the public understanding of architecture, etc.

That conversation covered a lot – and quickly. There was some definite passion shown at times during this discussion, (e.g. Zoe’s statement regarding contributing to the community: “there is NEVER a good time, so just do it!), and we have had a few blog post hitting this question in various ways.

At some point during this February session we discussed the idea of using a portion of this group’s time and intellect to create OUR vision of what we think the profession should be communicating to the public. Personally, I am energized by the idea of this group coming together to explore a “new understanding” of what the architect can bring to our community, on a local level, and perhaps, broader level. This seems daunting to be sure (has been a long-running issue), but I think this is a very worthwhile exercise. You have to start somewhere, why not here?

Think about it this way – we have had multiple firms’ CEOs, a national editor, the Ohio AIA president, and a national AIA lobbyist speak to us so far….and a lot of our own questions and debate. We have heard a lot of good perspective so far --- what are we going to do with it? Here are some of my notes that apply to the general topic of “Understanding / Communicating /Reinterpreting(?) the Value of the Architect”.

In March, let’s see if we can narrow this down. Why is there a lack of understanding or buy-in to the value of architecture? Is this a question of industry focus? Of willingness to accept risk? A general shift by the industry tied to societal trends overall? If the industry needs a “rebranding effort” what does that core message need to be?

Questions, notes & quotes from various Vision sessions so far.

“the public views architects as credible / problem-solvers / creative out-of-box / facilitators” This is a good place for overall perception, but how does this translate into “perceived value” when deciding to use architects?
· we are able to take the skills of architecture and apply them to the vague issues of society”
· Current AIA Ohio program: STAR Architecure = Speaking up to be Trusted Advisor Resource
· Brand Perception is not what you think it is, but it is what they think it is…Key Question – what should drive public’s understanding of architecture? Which one have we focused on as an industry: signature architecture” used by high$$ projects OR “value” needed by the majority of
clients?
· “sales is 90% listening (their needs) + 10% talking (yourself)” --- how does this apply to the BRAND of architecture?
· “Architecture is an economic driver…architects lead community programs that drive change.”
· “architects can build alliance around an issue”
· “architecture is a business, not a practice” We have to run a business to make a profit –
do not apologize for it.
· At a macro-level, the architects innate desire to create is in conflict with good business”
· “We need to lose big rather than win small” --- the individual’s short-term focused decisions affect the long-term health of the industry.
· focus of architecture for a healthier industry –“solution to current problems is not to go broader, but to go deeper”
· “clients want market-out advice (knowledge) after honest listening”
· Clients want architects to take responsibility –
can we do this in an effective way vs “just take the risk”?
· Is the current “business-focus” a 1st step on the path to long-term health (industry is committed to this change) or will this change back when the economy rebounds?
· How do we treat our own? True incentives vs running modern-day sweat shops?
· “architecture is the surplus beyond the traditional value of a building”
· “architecture is the path for people to have a better life in the space”
· “imagination is more valuable than knowledge”
· “architects need to be able to truly estimate cost, or we will never be able to take back the profession from contractors”
· “architecture is currently an undervalued career – we have not learned to leverage our skills yet”
· “we have to SELL what we do to succeed” (vs traditional “view” of marketing in architecture industry)
· Innovation drives advancement – need to truly understand the architectural clients’ needs in order to innovate

Principles of a GREAT BRAND: (do we need a new “brand” for architecture?)
· Has to be an engaging, compelling narrative
· Knows its customer
· Anticipates its customers desires
· Differentiate with great focus & clarity

And two quotes from Bob Gramann, stated within the first 10 minutes of the opening
session for the 2012 VISION classs. I think these apply.
· “behold the turtle…he only makes progress when he sticks his neck out”
· “vision without action = hallucination”

So let’s get moving on an issue that affects our industry. See you in a couple of weeks.

Practice and Philanthropy: Opportunities for Serving the Global Community.

During our January keynote presentation, I was struck by Ned Cramer’s discussion of current trends in Architecture, specifically the trend in education where students are looking toward humanitarian and philanthropic projects for inspiration and examples to be emulated. I couldn’t find any hard statistics on this, so let’s assume for the sake of this blog that this is the case.

So what’s driving this? One thought is this a rejection of the “anything goes” parametric form making in favor of a more grassroots approach to design. Now that’s a pretty shallow reason to dedicate your lift to a particular facet of architectural ideology, and I’d like to give Gen Y more credit than that. In discussion with a friend on this topic, she thought this is a result of educators being critical of the architectural movement of the past 20 years; buildings are not integrated into the urban fabric (contextualized), were poorly constructed, and inefficient. In short, they represent consumption. Or is this truly selflessness and a desire to have a greater impact on the environment and global society as a whole?

Given that July’s Vision session will be dedicated to social responsibility, I feel compelled to bring this discussion back to the topic of this month’s program:” Business Philosophy and the Economy.” How can we as practitioners support the efforts of these individuals or perhaps even participate?

Some firms are being called upon to assist with technical backup – an opportunity for partnering and mentorship. These firms offer stability and experience to temper energy and enthusiasm. Take for example emersion Design’s collaboration with University of Cincinnati’s Roche Health Center project in Tanzania (http://www.ncarb.org/en/Studying-Architecture/Educators/NCARB-Prize-Program/2011-Prize-Winner/PrizeWinner1.aspx) “The partnering architecture firm emersion Design led workshops and reviews, and the engineering firm Arup helped with the design of earthquake-resistant construction techniques, ensuring that construction and design conditions met the requirements on the ground.” (Direct Connection, Vol 14, issue 2)

Is this a niche to be filled in the architectural industry? Consider a firm that specialized in indigenous construction materials and techniques of remote areas throughout the world. They know the ins-and-outs of working with foreign government agencies and could facilitate volunteer groups or NGO’s traveling to areas in need and providing assistance through funding and project coordination.

How do these philosophies fold themselves into the average architectural firm? I submit Muller Hull as an example: two guys who served in the Peace Corps in Brazil and Afghanistan during the late 1960’s. After establishing the practice in the 1980’s they focused heavily on environmentally and contextually sensitive projects, winning awards for passive solar housing, contemporary cabins the Pacific Northwest, and an environmental laboratory. They have recently completed designs for a NetZero border crossing facility in San Ysadro, California. These men applied their innate sense of environmentalism and social awareness to create a successful, established, and recognized architectural firm.

What I truly hope is that this is not a trend, but rather a segment of the architectural population that has always existed, but now finds itself in the spotlight. Some questions to get the ball rolling: Is this something that we need to incorporate into our current business philosophy? What aspects of this “trend” can we apply to how we work with our current clients?