There has been some discussion on this web site and others about the cost associated with well designed homes. In my post entitled “McPeople” I posited that home owners in general are willing to accept inferior design in the name of blandness and resale. A commenter suggested that the cause for this is the marketing ability and budgets of the large tract home builders and that if architects would step to the plate through marketing and practice, people would see that they could build more distinctive homes that better fit their personalities and lifestyle.

I have decided that while there may be something to this idea (architects tend to put themselves above the suburban tract home) this alone will not increase good design in the suburbs. I think that many architects would say that new home owners are just not smart enough or sophisticated enough to recognize quality design and push it off. But I think that attitude only exacerbates the issue. The real problem is actually that the industry is geared toward repetition and is quickly becoming a one trick pony.

We have marketed to, and have received several commissions for smaller (2,500 sq. ft. and less) homes. We have been quick to repeat the mantra that good design doesn’t cost more. That for the same cost you could build a well designed house instead of the standard tract home.

I will not be saying that anymore.

What I should say instead, is that you SHOULD be able to build a well designed house for the same amount as a poorly designed house. The reality is that every time we try to do something unique, albeit simple to build requiring no additional knowledge or ability to construct, the builders get scared and increase their bids. Our portfolio seems to be filling with designs that the clients loved, we enjoyed creating, but that builders couldn’t figure out how to build at a cost comparative to other homes of their same size and complexity.

This will only be solved when builders who have an open mind come to the table and commit to good design, remove their blinders, and become willing to experiment with the rest of us. (see “Will Green Be Enough” for a discussion about motivation for good design)

Of course, that is not the end all. The other day, I had a headache so I went to my doctor and asked him for a full frontal lobotomy to remove the pain. He was incredulous! Somehow he didn’t think that was a good idea.

Of course the analogy is absurd, but it illustrates the issue I was addressing in “McPeople”. Many clients don’t respect and trust architectural professional opinions. It takes a bit of a leap of faith that most people are afraid of. Particularly since it usually involves a significant investment and considering most people who have a house built only do it once in their lifetime.

Those who do trust architects are typically people who have used them in the past for something other than their home (office building, retail store, etc.). This gets to the point of the commentator. We market to the wealthy, because the wealthy value what we do.

This reminds me of the venn diagram my first boss drew of 3 overlapping circles. One circle representing the client, another the architect and the last the builder. It is only where all three circles join that a truly great project can be conceived and executed. In the end, the reason our streets are full of McMansions is because it requires a feat that seems about as rare as the planets aligning to achieve something truly great; a willing and visionary client, a good architect and a committed builder. The trifecta!

Recently, Frank O. Gehry has been sued by MIT for some serious issues regarding the design of the three year old Stata Center. This building is a great example of the difference between architecture and sculpture. Architecture is meant to be inhabited and used. Sculpture is to be looked at and admired. Architecture can be so sublime as to be sculpture. But sculpture should never become architecture.For more, read Kyle Smith’s opinion here and Adam Raymond’s here.

There has always been a debate between architecture and sculpture. Many modernist architects fell in the “architect as sculpture” camp, then created sculpture and called it architecture. Mies van der Rohe was one of the first, with his glass house, copied by Philip Johnson. Peter Eisenman has participated, but the king of them all is good old Frank O. Gehry, or FOG, as we like to affectionately refer to him.

FOG’s buildings, for the most part, are sculptural with spaces carved out, almost as an after thought “oh, yes… I now remember this is supposed to be a functioning building.” The other poster on this blog is fond of saying that FOG’s buildings lack a sense of scale. FOG could do well making paperweights in the shape of his buildings–as it they work well at any scale as sculpture.

In another article on the Boston Globe web site (available here) the contractor complains that the architect poorly detailed the building and was made aware of potential problems during construction. Gehry has countered that the client cut the budget (which went from $100 million to $300 million). We’ve worked with enough contractors to know that they follow our details or don’t. If they don’t, we can easily wash our hands of the problems “Hey! The contractor didn’t build it as designed. It’s their problem.” But if the contractor doesn’t like our detail, because they’re the first to get called when there are problems, they’ll let us know right away. They’ll also let the client know that “Hey! We built it like the architect designed it. It’s their problem.” Knowing the complexity of a Gehry building, I’m sure that there was a lot of detailing left to the contractor, and I would bet the RFI (request for information) pile on Gehry’s desk is a few feet thick.

Usually, we don’t pile on fellow architects. We love to pile on fellow architects. Especially the famous ones who design buildings of debatable merit.
(image from Reason Magazine & Mr. Raymond’s post)