On the Word "Architect"

I'm known for freaking out about this particular issue. The root of my dissatisfaction is this: graduating from a professional program in architecture does not give you the right to call yourself an architect. If I called myself an architect in this post (and anyone read it) I would get an angry letter from the OAA (Ontario Association of Architects) lawyers. And yet, so long as you are not involved with building anything, you can call yourself an architect to your heart's content. You can be a software architect or a Java architect or a solutions architect (I don't know what any of those are or what they might do but they can and do call themselves architects). This issue is getting hot within the small world of architects. Here is an article about the issue caused by a petition to deny Daniel Libeskind the use of the word "architect" because he isn't licensed in Britain. I presume he is licensed somewhere but that doesn't seem to be the point.

While I get what the authors are on about - architecture is a closed society, the archetypal "conspiracy against the laity" - I think they are wrong for two important reasons. First, the suggestion architects need to teach people how to think. I'm just getting this one out of the way because "educating the client" has been a personal pet peeve for a long time. Our clients are almost invariably wealthier and just as educated as we are so what, specifically, are we to educate them about? How are we supposed to "teach them to think"? Like architects? Why? Isn't that why they hired us? The suggestion a client should educate an architect how to think would be met with gales of laughter. It's pompous as hell and part of the reason architecture is in the plight so accurately described by the authors.

Second, and far more important, is the authors' stance on our professions marginalization. For those of you who aren't architects - this started happening a long time ago. The net result is architects have lost all certainty about their place in the world. They know what they were trained to do, know what they are capable of doing, know they are worth far more than they make (in most cases) but don't believe they will be able to convince anyone else. This is why every time a celebrity shows any interest in architecture at all (like Kanye recently did about Le Corbusier) the architecture world loses its shit completely. The authors' recommendations are totally sound and worth consideration (with the exception of the educating bit) but move the profession in precisely the wrong direction. Instead of trying to find new ground we should be striving to retake lost ground - or consolidate our position. Architecture has never held the same place in North America as it does in Europe. People say this is because Europe has a culture of design. I say it's because 50% of all housing stock in Europe was destroyed during WWII and architects built it again. That's the sort of thing that gets peoples' attention. In North America the enormous housing explosion in the same period was based on the developer's model (you buy the lot and get six different options to choose from). Almost nobody in North America lives in a home designed for them by an architect. You might think every apartment building or condo is designed by an architect but it isn't the case. Architects only handle condo towers in major cities where competition drives the price premium on "design" up. In smaller cities buildings are designed by engineers and technologists and the drawings are stamped by an architect who charges either by number of pages or square footage (and never even looks at the drawings).

Here in Toronto, where competition between condo towers is expressed in advertising dollars spent, you will find the name of the developer, the builder, and the management corporation on every ad but never the name of the architect. Unless the architect is Daniel Libeskind (whose contribution to Toronto's skyline is arguably the worst of all the condo projects, certainly the most careless).

We don't need to teach clients how to think; we need to tell people they can become clients. The price difference between having an architect design your house or or reno or addition and having the same work done by an amateur is almost nothing. I don't mean you don't have to pay them - you do. But the amount you pay your architect will be (in almost every case) less than the combined savings on the work (having a design professional do your drawings creates fewer fuck ups during construction and in many cases, if the fuck up is the architect's fault, the cost will be deducted from their fee) plus the added resale value of your property. Having anyone but an architect design your house or building or office should feel like having anyone but a lawyer represent you in court. It is kind of obviously a dumb thing to do. Someone getting sued for the amount they will spend on any construction project would never argue that hiring a lawyer is too expensive.

This should be the core of every architecture organizations efforts until everyone knows it - architects are not just for the rich. If you are getting any work done on your house, you should consult an architect. Ok, if all you want is your bathroom re-tiled, maybe not. But if you want a new bathroom added to your house, definitely consult an architect. Almost every architect will tell you whether or not you should hire them after a consultation - architects are weird that way. If you don't need them, they don't need you. The job would be a loser for them. If you do need an architect, but not them, they will give you free advice about other architects to contact. Architecture is a wacky world. I'm imagining a lawyer telling you, "no, you don't need to hire me at $800/hr" - it isn't going to happen. But an architect will tell you something similar (and they don't charge $800/hr). How much do they charge? Either a percentage of total cost or a fee based on square feet. The cost is much much less than you think.

This, coming from me, might sound like asking a barber if you need a haircut. But the reality is most houses (and almost all condos) are badly suited to the way their owners live. Most people have at least one room in their house they never use. Most people in a condo need a room they don't have. And almost everyone has at least one that is way too big and one that is way too small. An architect would have prevented that. Your rooms would all be the right size and you wouldn't have too many of them (or too few).