<p>Thought this would be an interesting title ;-)</p>
<p>I was just wondering, based on former discussions here, when and why architects and more specifically architectural training became a field for the “star artist”. As such, I feel it has fallen further from favor (at least in the salary realm – Hollywood still idolizes the architect). Most architectural programs we visited, stressed design above all else. You simply had to get through structures, professional practice, mechanical systems, etc. Studio was your life. As a result, I for one, spent some of my career criticizing my life’s work, because although appreciated, and busy, I never became one of those star architects, whose work was published in the glossy magazines. </p>
<p>Why the title? How many dentists publish in glossy magazines The architectural profession is at least as critical as the dentists (at least in my humble opinion). If the architectural profession were more valued, I believe we would have better environments for working, playing, studying, socializing, etc. The energy consumed by buildings is a critical player in the green movement. I believe this movement is a necessity, not a luxury. Perhaps we need to stress the other services provided by architects as equally important as the art. If we encouraged future architects to market their critical services, instead of providing a luxury for the rich and famous, then perhaps it would be better respected and compensated by the general public as well. Even better…convince larger firms that architectural services are a great addition to the benefit package (as some firms are adding child care, legal care, etc. to the traditional health and dental benefits).</p>
<p>i agree. creating sustainable architecture and architecture for the poor are two ways i see directions architecture can head towards to become more valued by society than simply something that brings money in because of its aesthetic. but first we have to convince the public that architecture is not simply a spectacle and that design encompasses something far more than something that looks good. the media has definitely augmented this aspect of design. </p>
<p>I think one way is for architects to go into development for both rich and poor people. if we can learn how to control the larger process of development than simply the design aspect, i think we can make a huge impact. this is one thing that architecture education trains us to do-to think holistically and can be extremely powerful if we can bring many aspects of a project together. </p>
<p>rising gas prices will definitely change the way developments are created. the sprawlign suburbia no longer is a viable option because it just costs too much to drive everywhere around. i think this is a positive thing for architects as new future developments willl require the expertise of architects to propose for new solutions</p>
<p>so they say, if you don’t come from a rich family or don’t have connections to rich people, you’re out of luck. the average person cannot afford hiring an architect because designing a custom house takes a lot of time to produce and thus costs a lot. there are still many challenges for development for the poor and it’s extremely risky financially speaking…and i think that’s what has been keeping architects catering only to the rich (unless it’s a public project)</p>
<p>I agree that the design service of an architect is a luxury, especially at a residential level when a contractor can provide pretty much the same advice. Friends I know who have used an architect have added quite substantially to the expense of their homes/additions.</p>
<p>OTOH, people are more willing to spend money on their health and personal appearance (I’m not really sure that I understand your title, but dentists do very well, have great hours and nice working conditions - their work is worn by their patients rather than printed in glossy magazines). </p>
<p>I have a child interested in architecture, so I really wish that they could better integrate their services into the general population, but somehow they don’t do this.</p>
<p>Print in glossy magazines–… that is the last thing architects think about— or at least I would hope so. Doesn’t it matter what you see when you gaze out your window in the morning? Isn’t it important that you do have that window? Architects for better or worse design the world we live in- and what is funny is that doing this is more of a privilege then a job. Do architects need to make some money-- yes-- but they are payed in more then cash-- they are payed in the promise of betterment, they are payed by knowing that when that kid looks out his window he sees the empire state building, instead of some other office building, that the world is a slightly better place. That is what architecture should focus on-- making the world a better place-- and then maybe people will see that they want to live in a better place too.</p>
<p>I completely agree with you Tzar, but unfortunately architecture seems to fall into the same category as the fine arts financially. It’s nice to have, but money is tight, it is a luxury that can be cut. My environment really affects me and is important to me, but I can only afford what I can afford. Am I thrilled by the aesthetics of my home and work place? Heck NO, but what am I going to do? Probably a lot of people are in that situation.</p>
<p>well then the system needs to change-- people need to reject big developers-- architects are payed little as it is and I can’t imagine that it would that difficult to have architects design 50% of homes instead of the 10 or 5% that they do now.- for some reason this question of money doesn’t seem to add up-- I almost wonder if already wealthy “star” architects wouldn’t do jobs for free. Can someone tell me what is really going on here-- why architects don’t design cheaper housing??</p>
<p>On a similar note, why can’t builders prepare a decent lot for housing construction? They clear and grade the most minimal space possible, resulting in a home built into a hill or on a cliff. I guess it is just cheaper and some people would pay for that. If I could afford a choice, I would definitely prefer a lovely living space well-placed on a nice lot. Who wouldn’t?</p>
<p>It is also the same thing with cars. Why do economical cars have to be ugly while expensive cars have the luxury of nicely shaped sheet metal? Why can’t manufacturers shape econo-cars nicely too? It’s not like it would cost them much more. </p>
<p>All people can appreciate beautiful things, not only the wealthy.</p>
The architectural profession is at least as critical as the dentists (at least in my humble opinion). If the architectural profession were more valued, I believe we would have better environments for working, playing, studying, socializing, etc. The energy consumed by buildings is a critical player in the green movement. I believe this movement is a necessity, not a luxury. Perhaps we need to stress the other services provided by architects as equally important as the art. If we encouraged future architects to market their critical services, instead of providing a luxury for the rich and famous, then perhaps it would be better respected and compensated by the general public as well. Even better…convince larger firms that architectural services are a great addition to the benefit package