Do Architects have any power?

Isn’t the question, are architects relevant and necessary?

Most of our core skills have been split into specialist fields. For instance I was at an early design stage team meeting in the UK recently as Bream consultant, The design team included Urban design and Planning, Project management, retail planning, Integrated land use and transport planning, Sustainability and Energy. Housing etc, Access and special needs. M+E, Structural Eng, Local Architect and design Architect. The Architect had minor role and took direction from the urban designers. It seems all the interesting jobs are now performed by specialists with Architects left with the mundane task of documentation for planning applications and tender documents. Recently in Ireland we discovered that we could use drafting firms, to produce this information. There are examples of successful new Architecture and low energy building consultancies run quite successful with no architects in management roles. It may well be the case, that being an architect is bad for business. Architects don’t have power, they gave it away. Who after all designed the 35,000 one off houses built in 2003, was that architects, no.
Unfortunately the lack of political cloud from Architects/planners and engineers is a product of our archaic corrupt political system. Unlike the bankers, builders and unions, the Architects representative body never worked out how to play the civil service game, by getting down and dirty with the parochial political system which has the power.

No pleasure in saying this but power is something that has to be taken.
It’s not awarded to us for all our faithful years of study and working “under” an older pro.
I had to learn this myself the hard way as an engineer.

Better to try and organise something with finance companies for the design & planning fees for the homebuilder.
As it stands these fees are a lot for a homebuilder to take from their savings.
Once planning permission comes through the home loan can be applied for and used to pay the finance company.

Real power in this gombeenland can only taken from satisfying ordinary people.

@keating wrote:

For instance I was at an early design stage team meeting in the UK recently as Bream consultant, The design team included Urban design and Planning, Project management, retail planning, Integrated land use and transport planning, Sustainability and Energy. Housing etc, Access and special needs. M+E, Structural Eng, Local Architect and design Architect.
.

sounds like one fucking boring meeting

I know of a recent case where the architect was fired off a small project [for taking too long, or having the planning application returned as invalid, or some such] and the planning consultant, who was assisting the application, paraphrased the architect’s drawings and re-lodged them himself, in a seriously dumbed down form.

The architect was a bit pissed off, but also a bit concerned that a scheme that he had designed to address the sensitivities of a particular site had now been lodged in a crude form that would damage the site context that he had taken all that time to try to address.

The architect submitted a €20 third party observation pointing out that some serious design conditions would have to be imposed on any grant of planning permission if the scheme was to come back up to anything like the standard it had when originally designed, but the planning authority, either didn’t agree, or didn’t give a toss, and just granted permission for the crude version without conditions.

What hope is there for any kind of design standards, when architecture is so little regarded and nobody seems to either know the difference, or care.

@gunter wrote:

I know of a recent case where the architect was fired off a small project [for taking too long, or having the planning application returned as invalid, or some such] and the planning consultant, who was assisting the application, paraphrased the architect’s drawings and re-lodged them himself, in a seriously dumbed down form.

The architect was a bit pissed off, but also a bit concerned that a scheme that he had designed to address the sensitivities of a particular site had now been lodged in a crude form that would damage the site context that he had taken all that time to try to address.

The architect submitted a €20 third party observation pointing out that some serious design conditions would have to be imposed on any grant of planning permission if the scheme was to come back up to anything like the standard it had when originally designed, but the planning authority, either didn’t agree, or didn’t give a toss, and just granted permission for the crude version without conditions.

What hope is there for any kind of design standards, when architecture is so little regarded and nobody seems to either know the difference, or care.

Surely once the Planning Consultant had made changes the Archtiect had lost the right to the ownership of the design?

Don’t be too hard on yourselves. Surely an architect’s ‘eye’ would have prevented an engineer from doing this:

@KerryBog2 wrote:

Don’t be too hard on yourselves. Surely an architect’s ‘eye’ would have prevented an engineer from doing this:

That is fantastic! 🙂

the fact that architects cannot market themselves is a very significant hindrance to understanding and regard that gunter is referring to.

Joe Public equates architectural services to a luxury, which, in tight economic times, with viable alternatives available, comes at a high economic cost. Architecturally designed and produced rural developments tend to be equated to extortionately high production costs.

If Architects were allowed to market themselves and explain to consumers that high quality design and production can equate to lower build costs with high quality results then that would certainly get consumers interested. However, the starting point is the fee scale that architects charge. If Joe Public has a choice between paying Paddy ‘the jack of all trades’ a few grand to ‘draw up the plans, get planning for me and, sure, keep an eye on the build’… or paying de Architect 12% of a tight budget for a ‘quear lookin’ house’ which means the must forgo their €25k shaker / Grecian / tudor kitchen with granite worktop…. which will they choose, give the very limited understanding and knowledge put before them?? County councils grant bland bungalow designs at a drop of the hat while contextualised and contemplated designs are put through long drawn out rigmarole of intense Fis, clarifications and sometimes second or third applications. I have yet to see a house design refused by a planner for being ‘too boring’.

Similarly for housing development….. the vast majority of ‘architecturally designed’ housing estates in the country are littered with north facing patio doors, monotonous single aspect elevations, incidental flat plain green spaces etc…. questioning whether or not the designers were actually Architects or pretenders.

If architects were allowed to market themselves they would have to seriously consider a vital aspect of any business. The restrictions in marketing are viewed by many as a thin veil of cartel-ship.

State demands steep cut in fees from architects
»
ALREADY FLOUNDERING from the downturn, architects are coming under severe pressure from State agencies, whose remit to shave costs and cut back on expenditure is being felt across both the construction industry and the architectural profession.

Bidding consortia of architects, engineers and surveyors, we hear, are having their projections returned with demands to reduce their fees, from the standard scale of around 10 to 12 per cent of the build cost to, wait for it, 1 per cent. As one veteran architect asked: “Can anyone run a business on a 1 per cent margin?” Answers from architects, please, on a postcard if you can afford the stamp, to the CAG’s office

If architects were allowed to market themselves . . . .

Is there a law stopping them ?

I’ll try and get under that bridge…
Architects in most cases cannot compete with market forces except in niche projects with hard data. I blame the devil and the detail architects could also cause the destruction of Dublin repetition is prophet… I know I sure as hell couldn’t afford an architect and that is the freedom of the society we live in… Architecture is a risky profession are the risks worth the rewards? It all goes back to the master builder and split from there… gravy

I was speeding on the subway
Through the stations of the cross
Every eye looking every other way
Counting down ’til the train would stop:D

For a second I thought I had visited the Arch Tech section from “the boards” 😮

I’ll try and get under that bridge…
Architects in most cases cannot compete with market forces except in niche projects with hard data. I blame the devil and the detail architects could also cause the destruction of Dublin repetition is prophet… I know I sure as hell couldn’t afford an architect and that is the freedom of the society we live in… Architecture is a risky profession are the risks worth the rewards? It all goes back to the master builder and split from there… gravy

For a woman who seems so confident in her views, you sure articulate them hopelessly.

@teak wrote:

For a woman who seems so confident in her views, you sure articulate them hopelessly.

Agreed that’s why I get free critiques:) it’s about the journey…

@missarchi wrote:

I’ll try and get under that bridge…
Architects in most cases cannot compete with market forces except in niche projects with hard data. I blame the devil and the detail architects could also cause the destruction of Dublin repetition is prophet… I know I sure as hell couldn’t afford an architect and that is the freedom of the society we live in… Architecture is a risky profession are the risks worth the rewards? It all goes back to the master builder and split from there… gravy

I was speeding on the subway
Through the stations of the cross
Every eye looking every other way
Counting down ’til the train would stop:D

Another oblique post of the month award to Missarchi.

Wearnicehats – just wondering where that quote came from – 1 per cent is shocking!

And there’s no restrictions on architects marketing themselves – there used to be restrictions on advertising but they’ve been lifted long ago. The only constraint is that you cannot bring the profession or a colleague into disrepute.

Architects are not that bad on a personal level at marketing – word of mouth being by far the most valuable form (altho most of their websites are trash).

I reckon the RIAI needs to take some blame – they’ve done little to endear the profession to the public and reinforce the recognition of quality architecture in the public consciousness – we need education programs, TV series, open days which are geared to the public and not just other architects etc. Its time we stopped being such an insular profession.

http://www.bighugelabs.com/onblack.php?id=3604655877&size=large

is it considered bringing the profession into disrepute with accepting 1% fees?
A lot of the prefab house people here don’t charge for an architects basic service it’s included free.

@reddy wrote:

……….just wondering where that quote came from – 1 per cent is shocking!

It’s from yesterday’s IT
link http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/property/2009/1112/1224258650964.html

An inane article, an unattributed quote all written by an anonymous journalist.
K.

@reddy wrote:

I reckon the RIAI needs to take some blame – they’ve done little to endear the profession to the public and reinforce the recognition of quality architecture in the public consciousness – we need education programs, TV series, open days which are geared to the public and not just other architects etc. Its time we stopped being such an insular profession.

There’s a new RIAI launch next week, including lots of press, radio extra, extra….

Maybe a little too late

I’m a little uncomfortable with the subject of this thread; since when did architects have “power”? Dictators have “power”, architects have respect, maybe, but power?
The issue here is an undermining of the profession, and ignorance of the value of the service, the idea that it is a luxury and something dispensable. Talking in terms of power is not really helping the public perception of the profession, it plays into the image of the egotist, the self-indulgent artist, rather than the craftsman and “master builder”.

On a seperate but relevant note:
“I’ll try and get under that bridge…
Architects in most cases cannot compete with market forces except in niche projects with hard data. I blame the devil and the detail architects could also cause the destruction of Dublin repetition is prophet… I know I sure as hell couldn’t afford an architect and that is the freedom of the society we live in… Architecture is a risky profession are the risks worth the rewards? It all goes back to the master builder and split from there… gravy”

There is not a single gramatically correct sentance in that paragraph (this is not meant to be a personal attack, it is just a convenient example) missarchi, are you an architect and if so how do you communicate with clients? Do they know what you are talking about? I don’t.

@spoil_sport wrote:

how do you communicate with clients? Do they know what you are talking about? I don’t.

Ok so it’s not just me

@parka wrote:

ok So It’s Not Just Me

+1
😉

I think she’s an alcoholic with a touch of schizophrenia thrown in for good measure.

Either that or it’s a very concerted effort to wind people up on this site.

I can’t put it down to her being a non-native english speaker either, because other languages have syntax too and her spelling is usually pretty accurate.

She could also be suffering from locked-in syndrome and uses one of those machines that tracks her eye movement to make words, she just hasn’t mastered it yet.

Or perhaps someone has written a computer programme that takes architecture jargon and tries to put it into sentences and post comments online.
The programmer died before he could perfect his masterpiece, see Edward Scissorshands.

Any other suggestions?

“This message is hidden because missarchi is on your ignore list”

. . . how do you communicate with clients?

I’ve no fear for her clients.They can well look after themselves.
My fear is for the poor secretary who has to type up a coherent client report from a load of babble thrown over Miss Archi’s shoulder as she rushes out the office door . . .

But getting back to architects advertising.
Are there defined types of advertising for them – i.e. things that are considered dignified marketing and things that aren’t ?
Would this following one be seen as too pleb ?

Put the arch’s logo, office address and mobile on a triangular ruler.
All developers, builders, engineers, surveyors, etc who come into the office would be given one.
It is important to get a non-white coloured ruler as otherwise the ruler will be invisible amongst the mess of plans on the jeep dashboard and will be lost.

If this item is too tacky for the RIAI I can think of items of even more use to potential clients which can be customised for each architect’s practice.

But maybe you boys and girls want to hide your lights under a bushel . . .

I think architects could have an enormous amount of influence, whatever about power. Which brings me to one of my bugbears, for which I may be pilloried, but hey…

It is truly astonishing how little architects appear to actively engage with the built environment around them on the basis of personal interest alone. For a profession that demands an over-arching, all-consuming passion for its subject, above that of many other disciplines, it is remarkable how few architects seem to: a) be interested in the world around them, and b) seek to pro-actively use their insight, skills and practical resources to influence change.

One of course appreciates that like everyone else, architects have a day job, and lives to which they wish to retire come evenings and weekends. But just how few seem to engage in extracurricular design activity, whether it be voluntary, self-promoting, wishful thinking, lobbying, provoking, or simply thinking aloud, with the tools, skills and ideas at their disposal that one would imagine to generate immense satisfaction, is really quite surprising.
As such, questions one might ask are:

How many architects do you know have drafted simple design proposals for a problem or derelict site near where they live, and submitted it to the local planning authority as a possible way forward should an application come in, a CPO be enacted, or the authority force works to be carried out?

How many architects have sketched a quick redesign of an horrendous planning application as part of a submission on the case as to how it should be dealt with?

How many architects guide their local parish in the right direction over church, community centre or public realm proposals?

How many architects give an input on Tidy Towns committees?

How many architects speak out of poor work on the part of their colleagues, or national trends in planning and design issues?

When was the last time the RIAI ever took action on one of their members being involved in scandalously poor design and planning – of which there must be many hundreds over the course of the boom years? How can decent members accept this?

So few architects appear to engage with their profession in any of these, or other, ways. I suppose this was brought home to me by seeing the work of two or three architects who work their socks off in their spare time putting their skills to productive, valuable use for the benefit of society. It is baffling that so few architects appear be animated by everyday planning and design, or legacy problem sites and buildings they pass every day, or feel sufficiently engaged to want to take these on as personal exercises, in whatever small way that may be. Perhaps they do and we don’t hear of them, but that seems somewhat unlikely.

I think now more than ever, architects have to demonstrate their value to society by whatever means they can. Maybe I am wrong, and many are more engaged than what they let on, in which case, in these horrendously challenging times – and with more time on their hands – they need to show us what they’ve got.

@GrahamH wrote:

. . . . one of course appreciates that like everyone else, architects have a day job . . .

I don’t know about that, Graham :rolleyes:

A lot of us are unemployed, or at best, seriously under-employed.

The voluntary thing is fine in principle, but after a while you find that there’s not much dignity in unpaid work, . . . . when you’ve got people to support and bills to pay.

Having said that, I like your idea of an internal, Royal-Institute, bitch-fest, blood-bath,
you may have used the words ‘colleague criticism’, but we know what you had in mind . . . 🙂

@GrahamH wrote:

I think architects could have an enormous amount of influence, whatever about power. Which brings me to one of my bugbears, for which I may be pilloried, but hey…

It is truly astonishing how little architects appear to actively engage with the built environment around them on the basis of personal interest alone. For a profession that demands an over-arching, all-consuming passion for its subject, above that of many other disciplines, it is remarkable how few architects seem to: a) be interested in the world around them, and b) seek to pro-actively use their insight, skills and practical resources to influence change.

One of course appreciates that like everyone else, architects have a day job, and lives to which they wish to retire come evenings and weekends. But just how few seem to engage in extracurricular design activity, whether it be voluntary, self-promoting, wishful thinking, lobbying, provoking, or simply thinking aloud, with the tools, skills and ideas at their disposal that one would imagine to generate immense satisfaction, is really quite surprising.
As such, questions one might ask are:

How many architects do you know have drafted simple design proposals for a problem or derelict site near where they live, and submitted it to the local planning authority as a possible way forward should an application come in, a CPO be enacted, or the authority force works to be carried out?

How many architects have sketched a quick redesign of an horrendous planning application as part of a submission on the case as to how it should be dealt with?

How many architects guide their local parish in the right direction over church, community centre or public realm proposals?

How many architects give an input on Tidy Towns committees?

How many architects speak out of poor work on the part of their colleagues, or national trends in planning and design issues?

When was the last time the RIAI ever took action on one of their members being involved in scandalously poor design and planning – of which there must be many hundreds over the course of the boom years? How can decent members accept this?

So few architects appear to engage with their profession in any of these, or other, ways. I suppose this was brought home to me by seeing the work of two or three architects who work their socks off in their spare time putting their skills to productive, valuable use for the benefit of society. It is baffling that so few architects appear be animated by everyday planning and design, or legacy problem sites and buildings they pass every day, or feel sufficiently engaged to want to take these on as personal exercises, in whatever small way that may be. Perhaps they do and we don’t hear of them, but that seems somewhat unlikely.

I think now more than ever, architects have to demonstrate their value to society by whatever means they can. Maybe I am wrong, and many are more engaged than what they let on, in which case, in these horrendously challenging times – and with more time on their hands – they need to show us what they’ve got.

I don’t have time to reply in full to this right now but I will say that it is safely the most irritating post I have read in a long long time

I think Graham has a point and would personally love to see more negative reviews about bad buildings in the press.

There was a review some while back in an English paper that I read which slated a new civic building, pointing out the flaws in it both conceptually and contextually. Now when was the last time we saw anything architectural in the Irish press that wasnt a gushing review about the latest award winner. I’m not saying that we shouldnt publicly commend great architecture, just that a lot of dross goes uncriticised (apart from on this site).

When you start to read an article on the latest book, play, exhibition etc you never know how the journalist is going to rate it. But for some reason when people write about architecture they feel they have to commend its every detail – even when some of them dont work technically or aesthetically.

I don’t think we need to start filling the papers with how crap everything is, I mean where would you even begin? But it is a valid point, the most distressing fact is that in a lot of cases architects write their own reviews.

I wholeheartedly agree negativity is not the way to go, nor is it constructive. But to see even the slightest level of objective criticisim – by that I mean assessment – would hearten us that architects are really engaging. We tend to focus on the public’s lack of engagement or debate about architecture, when in fact discussion about architecture amongst architects themselves, within the public realm, is something that rarely, if ever, takes place.

Okay, I ‘did a Coughlan’ in respect of the day job reference, but the general gist of the above isn’t intended to refer to the current crisis at all. Nor is it a plea for architects to provide their hard won expertise and services to all and sundry. Rather, it simply surprises me how little architects feature in the public consciousness in terms of their interaction with the everyday, whether it be debate over a public project or something as localised as offering a guiding hand on local committees relating to the built environment. Of course some do – and I know some that are – but relative to the size of the profession this seems rather small. When one sees the enormous impact that some architects have through their all-consuming passion for buildings and design and its application in their community, it demonstrates what could be achieved if more architects had some role – however minor – in their local built environment or other public platform.

@henno wrote:

the fact that architects cannot market themselves is a very significant hindrance to understanding and regard that gunter is referring to.

…

If architects were allowed to market themselves they would have to seriously consider a vital aspect of any business. The restrictions in marketing are viewed by many as a thin veil of cartel-ship.

I was contemplating this question in another vein today, as in how can you possibly convince (sell) to the average layperson concepts that take years to develop? Is it a lost cause from the outset? Has this question ever been satisfactorily answered? Or is it always going to be compromise for one or the other party? The marketing question is a good one. However, if architects had real power, would marketing be necessary? :p

@reddy wrote:

And there’s no restrictions on architects marketing themselves – there used to be restrictions on advertising but they’ve been lifted long ago. The only constraint is that you cannot bring the profession or a colleague into disrepute.

That’s news to me? I don’t think that’s correct. The answer to Teak is that there is a law preventing marketing, or at least a Code of Conduct. Advertisement of RIAI services is still not allowed, else we might be ending up with the crass slogans customary of all solicitors’ offices as of recent years.

@zelemon wrote:

Architects maybe respected ‘honorable’ members of society but do we hold much power when serious issues arise? Yes we have managed to protect our ‘title’ but recent developments in the socio political arena would suggest that we do not have a voice or are simply not powerful enough for politiicans to bother with us.

1.2006 The GCC contracts were developed with relatively little input from the Archtiectural proffession, the result is a contract that is unworkable or unresonable for most to adminster.
2. May 2009 Tanaiste criticises us for having excessive fees etc.
3. 2008-2009- The developement of NAMA.
4. Nov 2009-State demands steep cut in fees from architects on new Childrens’ Hospital in Dublin

Sorry, I didn’t see this thread before I posted a new one about the “Romans” and the RIAI. :rolleyes: They are quite similar, but I hope the detail will define them differently.
I’m not sure this thread has adequately responded to the whole of your question yet. In Europe it is my understanding that architects are still valued citizens with a high degree of clout in their own province (quite rightly). In Poland for example, the Planning committee will ask the advice of the applicant architect before making a decision! And I have heard of other Planning Councils in Europe that are well-represented by architects. Again, quite rightly.

I would like to see rules placed at planning (or at inspected building control level), that the designer or trusted delegate should be responsible or consulted on all matters relating to physical impacts on the building, be it signage, decoration, security cams, fascia boards and what have you – even through the building’s life-cycle. Something like an Operations+Maintenance manual, only better. 😉

As for the meeting scenario depicted by Keating, I think that in certain large and complex projects architects are possibly getting marginalised, when specialisation and delegation is a necessity. In my experience, before the bust, I can only judge from similar meetings that the architect was the one who was always asked to supply all (or at least the majority) of the answers.

And most of all, the architect’s role is not and should not be defined by others. For me, as always, design = authorship = authority. As long as there is design, there is authority – I only wish our collective representatives could ensure that!

However, I do appreciate the question. It is possibly one that will always be hanging in there. What is a vision if it doesn’t have things in the way? But today it seems more pertinent than ever.

@PlanE wrote:

I would like to see rules placed at planning (or at inspected building control level), that the designer or trusted delegate should be responsible or consulted on all matters relating to physical impacts on the building, be it signage, decoration, security cams, fascia boards and what have you – even through the building’s life-cycle. Something like an Operations+Maintenance manual, only better. 😉

From what I can tell, most planners despise most architects, . . . . . probably with some justification.

I can’t see that system working, PlanE.

@PlanE wrote:

That’s news to me? I don’t think that’s correct. The answer to Teak is that there is a law preventing marketing, or at least a Code of Conduct. Advertisement of RIAI services is still not allowed, else we might be ending up with the crass slogans customary of all solicitors’ offices as of recent years.

Nope – this is from the RIAI member bulletin issue number three. Its been that way since 2004 – all as part of the reshape of things for the competition authority.

“The RIAI Council removed the restriction on paid advertising formerly contained in the RIAI Code of Professional Conduct. The new rules are operative from 23 April 2004. The only restrictions are that any advertising should be truthful, should not reflect unfavourably on other architects and should not bring the profession into disrepute.”

@reddy wrote:

Nope – this is from the RIAI member bulletin issue number three. Its been that way since 2004 – all as part of the reshape of things for the competition authority.

“The RIAI Council removed the restriction on paid advertising formerly contained in the RIAI Code of Professional Conduct. The new rules are operative from 23 April 2004. The only restrictions are that any advertising should be truthful, should not reflect unfavourably on other architects and should not bring the profession into disrepute.”

thanks for that reddy

@gunter wrote:

From what I can tell, most planners despise most architects, . . . . . probably with some justification.

you sound quite comfortable with that gunter
@gunter wrote:

I can’t see that system working, PlanE.

I wasn’t suggesting we should ask them…
I don’t know the parties who change planning law, but I don’t see why architects shouldn’t be among them.

@reddy wrote:

Nope – this is from the RIAI member bulletin issue number three. Its been that way since 2004 – all as part of the reshape of things for the competition authority.

“The RIAI Council removed the restriction on paid advertising formerly contained in the RIAI Code of Professional Conduct. The new rules are operative from 23 April 2004. The only restrictions are that any advertising should be truthful, should not reflect unfavourably on other architects and should not bring the profession into disrepute.”

I seeeeeeeeeeee said the blind man. Interesting… must get a few ads in lol

Re: The possibility that planning officials despise architects

@PlanE wrote:

you sound quite comfortable with that gunter

I don’t know if I’d use the term ‘comfortable with that’, PlanE, but when you read some of the extravagant claims and downright drivel that accompanies many planning applications, you can see where the average, put upon, planning official might develop a low tolerance for swaggering architectural arrogance and precious egotistical posturing.

I mean, obviously one would prefer at all times to be regarded with enormous respect, but I suspect we’d be in delusional territory if we thought that this was actually the case.

I’ve been at the odd planning meeting where the merits of adjoining buildings have come up for mention and I’ve heard the odd planning official literally pour scorn on the design ability of the relevant architectural firms, sometimes using language that would make even seasoned archiseekers blush.

Human nature being what it is, one imagines that, on occasion, the door may have hardly swung closed before gunter’s proposed magnum opus, and matchstick model, came in for the same vitriolic treatment.

However, you have to move on, you can’t dwell on stuff like this, it’s not worth wasting time worrying about it, tell yourself you have nothing in common with these people and anyway, if it wasn’t for feelings of vengeful bitterness, many of us would be empty on the inside 🙂

@gunter wrote:

you can see where the average, put upon, planning official might develop a low tolerance for swaggering architectural arrogance and precious egotistical posturing.

I mean, obviously one would prefer at all times to be regarded with enormous respect, but I suspect we’d be in delusional territory if we thought that this was actually the case.

Actually, when it comes to my work I couldn’t give a rats-ass what planners thought of me. Am I in a minority of one here? One good thing about crit-based training is you have far more intelligent and relevant criticism to deal with and learn from. Planner’s criticism? Don’t make me laugh. I met planners for one meeting, in which we (including the client) were told that the only way this site could be developed is to do it their way. So they designed it. I didn’t fall about laughing my ass off. But it is now built as the most laughable, architecturally inept pile of shyte that anyone had the misfortune to witness.

@tommyt wrote:

sorry but this is absoute horseshit in the context of the speculator-led planning system we are burdened with.

I’m not sure who you are aiming at, dear fellow. speculators? planners? architects? ‘built environmental professionals’ in general? Even if most stuff is not designed by architects, as has actually been the case since time immemorial, that doesn’t undermine my statement. Not all design is good design, obviously. What exactly are you talking about? I can’t wait to hear.

@tommyt wrote:

Do you honestly wonder why other built environment professionals have a poor opinion of architects?

No, as I said above, I honestly do not wonder and moreover couldn’t give a flying f**k what ‘built environmental professionals’ thought of us. Should I?

Scuse me for jumping in here but…..PlanE essentially what you’re saying is that you couldn’t give 2 curses about what anyone else who is not an architect (preferably only the ones qualified enough to crit your work) thinks, and that you’re basically above anyone else involved in the building/design industry because – well, you’re an architect…
As an engineer, let me assure you that you’re a member of an overall team – something that many architects tend to forget – and that you’re not any more or less important than anyone else on that team. A concept is fantastic, but it’s useless if it doesn’t stand up and has no services in it.
People are hardly to blame for the opinion that (as an architect once said to me) “most architects are egomaniacs”. (his words, not mine)

@dan_d wrote:

People are hardly to blame for the opinion that (as an architect once said to me) “most architects are egomaniacs”. (his words, not mine)

A wise person would leave this thread alone . . . . . before somebody has to come out with the mop and bucket again

so, pressing on . . .

discuss the role of ego in architecture:

It seems to be that wherever drive and ambition are called for, there will be plenty of big egos ready and willing to answer the call. Does architecture require drive and ambition? . . . . . I suppose Great architecture probably does.

There’s an argument that without a big ego driving the architect onward, the forces that produce creativity and innovation are never fully charged. It’s the big ego, craving attention, that fuels the creative driving force.

In this argument, it is the role of the big ego to banish self-doubt, dismiss uncertainty and instil belief. Nobody’s going to produce great architecture without being totally convinced that they have the ability and the belief to carry it off, a big ego will do this for you.

This is bad news for those of us whose egos are ugly little bastards that nothing will ever satisfy.

But we’ve been talking about great architecture, what about good architecture? Is a giant ego a help or a hindrance in producing good architecture?

I think this is where the concept of tradition in architecture is [or was] tremendously useful. For the architect that’s not quite sure if greatness beckons, or not, there can be an understanding that, within a tradition, the making of even incremental advancement, or subtle refinement, can bring about good architecture.

Some people would contend that producing good architecture is no bad thing to aspire to.

Unfortunately, your average architect with his big ego isn’t going to be satisfied by such low goals and fuelled by enormous feelings of self-worth and with his critical systems disengaged, he’s still going to be out there desperate to make his mark.

At least all of the above types, whether they’re burdened by big egos or small egos, are passionate about architecture, the real damage is probably being done by the guys who just don’t give a toss.

Probably better not to think about this too much, and anyway my doubts tell me that I could be completely wrong.

@gunter wrote:

. It’s the big ego, craving attention, that fuels the creative driving force.
.

I find this hard to accept.

Great passion fuels the creative force.

Great passion can exist without ego.

Ego is detrimental to the creative force ….. there exists the ability to say “I am me” without being self serving and closed to others.

Balls to ego! It’s hard work, late nights and pissed off loved ones that never see you that makes great architecture. As with most worthwhile achievments in life, it’s the hard slog that counts and nothing else can take its place.

To sum up, the answer to the question “Do Architects have any power?”, most certainly the answer would have to be an emphatic Yes.

Now, I wonder how many people on here that is going to frustrate / displease / infuriate? 😡