Architects Are Irrelevant, So You Better Hire An Architect
This Guest Post is by Jon Buerg. This is the third of hopefully many, many articles from Jon.
A trending narrative amongst architects and architect-haters is that architects are becoming (or already are) irrelevant. The writings of the folks covering this narrative read very much like the “Apple is doomed” articles that have waned as Apple has grown, but never gone away. I’m hopeful that like those Apple doom articles, these missives on the irrelevance of architects will be funny to read years later when architects are stronger than ever as a profession and vital members of the project delivery team.
I’m speaking anecdotally with my stance on this topic. My experience as an architect is in a sector where we frequently join project teams already assembled and led by someone who isn’t an architect and doesn’t have a background in architecture to get a small or medium-sized project designed. We’re talking general contractors, construction managers, civil engineers, interior designers, even the clients themselves (or worse yet, the client’s “representative”)-all as leader of the project team, with contractual relationships that enforce that hierarchy. These types of project teams all have one thing in common: the project delivery process sucks. For some it’s so bad it’s a small miracle when anything actually gets built, for others it’s varying degrees of suckiness. But they all suck to some degree. People on the team are often arguing or wasting time blaming each other for why this is over budget or that didn’t get done on time. It never ceases to amaze me how much of the client’s time and money gets lost on these kinds of projects.
Why? To architects the answer is obvious. The architect is the great generalist of the project team. The architect knows a good deal about every other discipline on the team; from engineering to construction to real estate to maintenance and everyone else in between. All of the other players on the team are specialists, and they’re trained that way. The architect on the other hand is trained to be a jack of all trades when it comes to project delivery, so they have a natural inclination to bring it all together and keep it coordinated. This is where the haters will quickly say, “Jack of all trades, but master of none.” And this is exactly what’s wrong with that haterade. It’s a statement that misses the point on the type of leader needed for great project delivery, aside from also missing the point on all of the unique design insights that architects bring to the team as creative professionals (that, by the way, is where the AIA’s advertising campaigns go astray: by getting too caught up in the art of architecture).
Delivering a building project is insanely complicated. It only gets more complicated as time goes on too. Because of evolving laws, codes and zoning, a changing climate, ever increasing litigation, economic chaos and the unyielding march forward of technology and you damn well better have someone at the helm who is a big picture type of leader. That’s the architect for precisely the reasons I mention above. Whenever someone else on the project team leads, I’ve found that it’s most common for one of three scenarios to cause the project delivery process to suck:
- The leader has a myopic and perhaps downright selfish interest in their trade or discipline, and that means the rest of the team either languishes or is suppressed by the pursuits of the leader. The result is that the project goes off schedule due to a lack of leadership on all fronts.
- The leader’s lack of knowledge about one or more of the other disciplines on the team means that things don’t get coordinated properly or at all. This causes cost overruns during the construction phase.
- The leader has no idea what the project delivery cycle is, and therefore is incapable of providing organized and linear leadership to guide the team to a successful delivery of the project. This causes false starts on different phases of the delivery process and creates both cost and schedule overruns. As the most common scenario, I call this caveman project delivery because it’s all, “grunt, grunt, draw me plan. Grunt, grunt, you build me this. Now.” There’s no understanding of the myriad of steps it actually takes to get to a built project.
This is where the opportunity for architects is located. We need to present business arguments to the business people-our clients-about how good leadership provided by the architect creates better outcomes in the project delivery process, specifically with regard to budget and schedule. Money and time, the core of business, that’s where architects in their traditional role as leaders of the team can be invaluable assists to the business word. Then we can top that sundae with the cherry that is great design.
Subscribe to the blog so that you don’t miss future guest posts from Jon Buerg: Shoegnome on Facebook, Twitter, and the RSS feed. You should also go ahead and follow Jon on twitter. Hopefully that will encourage him to share more of his thoughts on BIM and being an architect in the 21st century. Jon and I first met at an ARCHICAD user group. If you liked this post, let Jon know and then go attend a user group meeting.
Steve Nickel
Excellent article…hail to the architect! We all need to aspire to be the Joe Montana, John Elway, and
Peyton Manning’s of our profession.
Willard Williams
Well if a project is being lead by someone other than an architect, then there is already something wrong with that picture and the architect and his firm should not be apart of the project. Especially if it’s a commercial project and the architect is responsible for signing the documents and taking on the liability for the work the is produced.
The real issue is who is hiring the team? The client. Why are they structuring a team that isn’t lead by an architect? Lack of experience, cost, all of the above. I have found the biggest problem we face as professionals is being under valued and under paid for our services. We are asked for our expertise and experience to help someone develop a project yet our services seem expensive to them and they go out and find a lower bidder to lead or create the project.
The solution is that architects should become developers, property owners, and create their own projects. We know what can and will work from start to finish, in most cases and yet we have to concede at every turn because of cost, or time.
The other issue is the time it takes to get a project permitted through building and approved through planning. If we could streamline the permitting and approval process through the use of technologies like Solibri, that allow planners and building technicians to review massive amounts of data autonomously we could save tons of time and money in the process.
Architects should lead the projects they work on. The client is essential to the process but should allow more freedom to the design team to express the design and concept in ways that aren’t traditional or necessarily focused on outdated methods of construction, interaction, or fabrication. A mere four hours of an architects time on a new project can increase the the value, longevity, and success of project many times over.
Steve Nickel
Great input Willard!
Definitely agree with your paragraphs 1 and 2. With regard to paragraph 3, this is what we do. We have a “shovel ready” project now…see: http://www.saintmoritzhof.us. The messy inconvenience is that there is risk involved, and the need to attract financing, which we are now looking for. This is not easy, or everybody would be doing it.
Willard Williams
Have you ever tried taking your shovel ready plans to a bank to see what they have to say? Personally I have never tried that approach but I think Jonathan Segal has done that in the past with his projects to get financing.
Steve Nickel
Thanks again Willard. Yes, we’ve worked with commercial bank lenders before. For various personal reasons, this time we are looking for equity investment. Our potential return will be less, but so will be the risk.
However, for either type of capital the challenge is the same: “have some fish (buyers) in hand or at least nibbling”.
Willard Williams
I might know a group that is Boulder that would potentially be interested in investment opportunities.
Steve Nickel
Thanks Willard for the referral! We also sent you a private email expressing OUR interest.
To all…it pays to advertise with Shoegnome! And, it’s great to make everyone’s acquaintance.
Looking forward to upcoming discussions…Steve Nickel
Jon Buerg
Great comments, everyone! Glad to see this article is provoking thoughtful feedback!
I like the football analogy, because I was thinking about the need for architects to be aggressive and go into beast mode with our push to lead project teams.
I also love that the concept of architect as developer is being brought up because it’s no coincidence that the talented architects who’ve pulled this dual role off are killing it with the projects they are developing compared to their peers who are in the traditional build-a-piece-of-shit-for-nothing developer role. Where a general contractor is also the deficit lead designer. They are the worst.
Steve Nickel
Jon…NOW you have really got us revved up to preach to the choir…
Actually, the WORST is when the homeowner and builder collaborate: Homeowner: “I know what I want, I don’t need an architect”. Then, the Builder (by the way, we are also builders) cooperates: “Just give them what they want”. The hapless (residential) result is everywhere…just drive through any “high end” residential development. The ill-educated and atrocious taste is abundant.
Still, budget doesn’t seem to be the overriding issue. Robert A.M. Stern comments in his book HOUSES, “the typical Aspen (Colorado) house tends to favor size over composition, resulting in massive (geometrically unresolved) roofs enveloping rambling, ill-defined interior spaces.”
What to do? Make inroads where we can I guess…I’m interested in comments from “the choir”.
Perry Cofield
Part of the problem is that an architect is, and is perceived as, so many different things. And in fact we are. Lets face it, there are design firms and firms that could be characterized as much more CD and CA heavy. The erosion of our field began around Louis Sullivan’s time, and he predicted it. In my lifetime CM firms took over part of our job. If you work on a government project, the “constuctability” jocks will throw in their 98 cents. A kitchen designer recently told a public audience that an architect would not know how to design a kitchen! See where this has gone? We are Giants taken down by all those Liliputians, right? The most favorable road to respect now is to build your own projects, as Jon points out above. Then work as a design-for-hire firm once you have an endowment.
Lawrence Schwirian
The problem (architects are irrelevant) as I see it is multi-faceted. First, it is no secret that the common man or woman is in general visually illiterate; this in part has to do with the biases of our educational system which tends to neglect art as a valued part of curriculum. Second, we live in a capitalist economy and the people who are frequently our clients are educated in law or business and understand concepts of cost and schedule but frequently don’t value “art” as much as they do program, efficiency, durability and good building. Third, the architect’s education tends to focus almost exclusively on the “art” in architecture and consequently the “nuts and bolts” of architecture tends to be regarded as not of the essence of architecture. Fourth, the architectural media tends to publish what is different and not necessarily what is good. Fifth and last, there are too many practicing architects that do not value the insight and expertise of the other members of the team. There will never be architecture without “art” but architecture is not a pure art. Every member of the team would like his/her discipline to take priority but it is the architect’s job to manage all the conflicting inputs and make decisions about what compromise to make for the benefit of the greater whole. For the architect to do this he/she must first have the trust and respect of the other members of the team and to do this he/she must first learn to speak their language and understand their priorities.
Jared Banks
Lawrence, well said!
Steve Nickel
Lawrence…you make a lot of compelling observations. Back to Jon Buerg’s observation that “the architect is the great generalist of the project (including client) team”, we’d like offer our 2 cents worth on your comments:
1) The common person is visually illiterate. Debatable, but an opportunity. It is the architect’s job to educate and help. Our favorite clients are…
a) The ones who know that they are visually illiterate and are willing to pay for help.
b) The ones who think they are visually illiterate, but actually are not. (But still willing to pay)
And, let’s not get too high on our high horse with regard to educational curriculum. At the Boston
Architectural Center, they didn’t offer too many electives in Accounting, Economics, Finance,
History, Marketing, Music, etc. either.
2) Clients don’t value architect as art. Another chance for the architect to instruct. But certainly we
like the clients who have prospered enough to pass on their money to us.
3) Totally agree, when the art in architecture is lost, we are just building shelter. As for learning the
“nuts-and-bolts” of construction, there are many other ways of learning that. There is only so
much that one can learn in academia.
4) Depends on the “architectural media”.
5) Totally correct on teamwork. As a design-build firm we are, by definition, “the architect-in-
charge”. The way we work is…
a) Our lead carpenter also functions as the on-site project manager. Over the years, he has
been paid as much as we pay ourselves. How’s that for getting respect?
b) Lawrence, your comment that: “every member of the team would like his/her discipline to
take priority and the architect’s job is to manage all the conflicting inputs and to make
decisions about comprises for the whole” is priceless. Absolutely right on…my wife and
architect/partner calls it: “being the Cub Scout Den Mother”.
c) Finally, from “the team”, we often hear “Well, we haven’t ever done it that way”, or…”Other
builders do it this way”, or…”Don’t you think this would look better?”, etc. No harm in listening
and learning, but as being in charge of the big picture we often insist on “doing it our way”.
I suppose this is a long response, but from our perspective, the architect is far from irrelevant.
Lawrence Schwirian
Steve: As an architect I certainly don’t want to believe that architecture is irrelevant but its relevance seems of concern to only a select few. To me the “art” of architecture is not just what the building looks like but is the synthesis of aesthetics with the analytical aspects of design resolution. Let me give you a couple examples. If you are designing a symphony hall that looks beautiful but has absolutely lousy acoustics have you accomplished architecture? If you are designing a school for the blind and the primary design effort is what the building looks like from the outside have you accomplished architecture? In other words the “art” of architecture is not just the aesthetics but is also the efficacious solving of the building program in a manner that takes into account all aspects of good design: commodity, firmness and delight.
Steve Nickel
Hi Lawrence. Sure…good architecture is not JUST Art, but it includes Art.
Comon
Interesting article here.I agree on many of the points. As an architect who switched to Real estate, it’s incredible to see things from a different point of view.The Architecture profession has lot so much ground over the last 2-3 decades, it’s incredible. In the real estate company I work for, I’ve been to meetings, and I think to myself ‘architects should be leading these meetings’,but unfortunately not.
40 years ago, during the post war period, Governments were big spending big on housing,big projects etc. Today with a lot of governments cash strapped, and housing seen more as an investment, and a means of generating income, rather than shelter,The landscape has totally changed. And since architecture has not adapted to the change,It is increasingly becoming irrelevant.
Today, the “masterbuilders/ citymakers” are developers (most of whom have no idea of the built environment). And this is where I somewhat disagree with the article. The profession has sat back and allowed other professions to spring up rather than taking advantage of changes. The industry was ripe for change, and developer profession was born.
The profession is in a very interesting situation now, where Architects have the most knowledge and understanding of the built environment,but are the least in control of shaping it.
As some people have already pointed out, maybe it’s about developing your own projects,becoming a Architect-Developer who cares about how buildings and cities are made,not just about money.
The profession is undergoing some serious challenges. With pressure on construction costs,more people getting into real estate/property development (with the sole aim of making money), technology,politics and finance (forces that directly influence the built environment),it’s only a matter of time before the nail seals the coffin.
I believe it’s time for architects to stop complaining about they irrelevancy and start being innovative with their skill set
Cary Westerbeck
Excellent post, Jon, and thanks for having him as a guest blogger, Jared. I agree with all the points Jon made; I was nodding along saying “yes, exactly.” Ten minutes ago I got a call from a GC who’s already working with a client who wants to build a 3rd story addition, and now they’re looking for an architect after the fact. Of course (as always) they have a wildly unrealistic timeline and no conception of what the building process entails. As a result of these conversations, I have become expert at bursting bubbles while remaining upbeat.
The comments are rich in this post as well. I don’t have much to add, as it’s all been said by Jon, Willard and all the commenters. I second almost every issue and concern brought up here, and experience it first hand every day. While I still have many projects in design or construction right now for clients, I saw the writing on the wall a few years ago and have been actively working to develop my own projects. This is a difficult road. I bought an urban property (we live in the old building now) and I’m designing a mixed use project for the lot that I hope to entitle/permit and get built in the next five years, provided I can find willing investors (a big if!). I think this is what architects should naturally do, though I recognize that it’s enormously difficult to find the capital and establish oneself as an architect developer.
Lastly, I agree with Comon that I frequently see real estate and planning decisions made with no consult of an architect, where the architect is precisely the professional with the skill set needed to bring it all together. It’s maddening.
Steve Nickel
Hello Cary…thanks for your comments above, especially the BIG IF on finding investors. I just noticed that Enoch Sears quoted you in his latest email regarding the Business of Architecture Summit. So you are probably familiar with the AMA System he does with Eric Bobrow and Richard Petrie. I am a subscriber to that. A few weeks back, Richard gave me some rather profound (?) advice on finding investors for our proposed townhome project: “go where the fish are”.
So among other things, I joined Investors Realty Resource of Colorado (IRROC). Next Thursday I’ll be attending their monthly meeting where somebody is going to present: “How to get an endless supply of investment deals”. In the unlikely event that I learn something profound, I’ll be happy to pass this along to you.
In the meantime, I don’t see any other alternative but to persevere. The fish are somewhere…if it were easy, everybody would be doing it.
Jon Buerg
Thanks, Cary! And I’ve definitely been on the receiving end of calls just like the one you mention in your comment, they will never learn…