Architecture as selling.
When trying to interpret, criticise or understand any piece of modern architecture never underestimate the importance of the client architect relationship. Whenever i get a brief to design a theater, art gallery, research laboratory or any building, i try to look for case studies of such buildings around the world. Then i will pay specific attention to how the architect dealt with the individual or organisation, which was his/her client.
Sometimes the client can change from one end of a project to another - this is often the reason for poor design decisions etc, not the architect. Some architects like to show the client a number of ideas, and allow the client to pick one - giving the client some feeling having picked out the one, of 'ownership' and participation in the design process. It works on the scale of house design, the home occupier enjoying a certain deserved level of credit for what they have obtained as an end result. In this particular case, it was the architect who was also the client!
Are all you planner people here saying that the architect should be untrue to what he preaches everyday inside in college? Are you trying to tell me honestly, that the client (in this case the architect) should be untrue to that which they really want to have as their home? Of course, not. So from day one, the stage was always going to be set for a confrontational battle of Planner v. Architect. But I would just like to qualify this, by saying Planner v. Client. (in this case the architect)
When my employer in the architects practice here, decided to renovate and extend an old farmhouse ‘in a traditional manner’, most of his employee young ‘Rem Koolhaas bridgade’ of architects hated him for it. I am sure that Mr. Lecturer in Milwaukee University would have to take a similar amount of abuse from his angry young undergraduates, had he opted to go the route: I will NOT fight the planners, and instead I will work with them.
The problem with architecture today, is not selling the product to the young students Mr. University lecturer talks to everyday in the studios. But selling the concept to the broader public. Unfortunately, because architects spend so long trying to convince each other how to design, what is good and what is horrible – they have just about forgotten the main sell – Joe average, Joe Sixpack and you or me.
Coop Himmelblau’s principle architect, Wolf Prix once told this funny story: On a flight from America to Europe (9 hours) he was unfortunate enough to be sitting beside another famous European Architect. The famous Architect proceeded to tell Wolf at length and in detail about his current projects. After 8 hours talking the architect then stopped and said, “Here, now I have been talking about myself for too long now. I am interested in what you have to say. . . What do you think about my architecture?”
Architects have decided some time ago, to allow Planners to accept total responsibility for activating, emulating and being the chosen voice of public consciousness. This is never good enough in my opinion - Architecture has to learn how be accountable by itself, for all its actions. Unfortunately, this client/architect bond is a very strong one - much, much stronger than the planner/community one in many ways.
That is why so many architects will blame the client too, if he is not allowed to design a modern house.
Some good examples:
Steven Holl is very good at dealing with planning bodies with most of his architecture. To achieve his end result, Steven always coins phrases and descriptions of the project from the very beginning. Why? Because over a time period as the design is seen by clients, other staff members, planning authorities and the public – the images embodied in the ‘catch-phrase’ take hold in the imaginations of people.
Read about his church of the seven sacriments, To understand how he managed to still keep his seven towers, even when the budget was about to be slashed by the client. At one point it was going to become the Church of the four towers, but someone said, “No, It has to be the Church of the Seven Towers, that is what it was from the beginning”. If Architects really want to learn how to promote their buildings and ideas, it is about learning PR skills, marketing skills and show-manship.
Daniel Libeskind (Ground zero rejuvenation project architect) is a genius at this. Once he entered a housing development competition in Berlin, with an entry to flood the whole site and make a man-made lake instead. He won the competition! Ken Yeang in Malaysia is a great promoter of ‘Marketing and Architecture’ for his bio-climatic skyscraper ideas. He talks of educating your market, a bit like a fisherman will often sprinkle bait around in the hope of attracting a nice fat Carp!
Coop Himmelblau often treat there architecture for roof tops in central Vienna as 'Works of Art' and therefore not subject to normal planning guidelines - projects like their rooftop remodelling, which is about as far as an architect can go 'against the planning establishment'. Coop Himmelblau complain that too many architects nowadays use inability to bring projects to fruition owing to planning restrictions as a crutch basically. One they could do without.
