Based on the role of the architectural assistant as discussed in the previous entry, my interest has shifted into considering the role of the architect too. Therefore, this entry looks into a review of some research I did in that regard. It particularly focuses on the well discussed role of the architect as a developer which seems to be very prevalent in other countries apart from the UK, and how forward-thinking architecture schools are preparing their students for a life as an architect/developer. This an entry for the month of February 2019.
So far, I’ve realised that my interests seem to tend toward wider discussions in architecture. In comparison to the entries by other students at WSA (who predominantly write about construction or office procedures), my interest seem to vary every month. This entry is no different.
In the context of an increasingly market driven society, architects are often required to prioritise the finances of the project above all else. Competition is rife, with firms frequently undercutting one another in pursuit of a commission. Many developers require fees to be lowered in order to secure a commission which can lead to poorer quality architecture and creatively unfulfilled architects.
One response to this concern is the new found popularity of architect-developers. In parallel to the more traditional forms of practice, firms such as Carl Turner Architects and PTE have produced projects that they have both designed and funded, acting as both architect and client. This opportunity gives architects greater control to design buildings they feel will have a truly positive impact on the built environment, and which they as creative professionals will enjoy designing. In order to understand why the architect/developer role is so prevalent, I researched into Mr Phill Burnsten who a renowned american architect in this field.
My Phill is an architect, technologist and educator who teaches at Yale where he received both his BA, Masters. He was formally a vice president at Autodesk where he was responsible for the company’s future vision and strategy for technology for the building industry. Prior to Autodesk, he was a principal for Pelly Clark Pelly Architects, He is co-editor of building in the future (Recasting labour in architecture and BIM in Academia).
Mr Phil teaches pro-practice at Yale and has spent the last the years during his practice and teaching careers interested in how architects can convert their value propositions in the built industry. One of the strategies that he discusses often with regards to this is (how architects can play a larger role in the supply chain) is the question of the architect as a developer. He teaches a course at Yale called ‘New Value Propositions for design practice’ where his students are exploring the business models of architecture and looking at different kinds of strategies for how they can create new ways of establishing a relationship that leverages their design talents but gets away from the traditional commoditised models of practice. He suggests that the students of the course have one assignment which is to create the next generation architecture firm that is not paid by fixed fees or hourly fees (not get paid in a traditional way). One of the strategies that the students often look is whether we as architects that have a relationship with development.
“Real estate development is a unique interdisciplinary process of balancing the characteristics of the land with the intricate demands of the public policy while serving the market with a business model founded in debt. These four masters require the vision of a planner, the technical expertise of an engineer, and the coordinating skills of a business person to successfully deliver land use”
– from ‘The profession of Real Estate Development’ by Barbara Bowers, ULI/Atlanta
The bit of text in bold inherently describes the skills that an architect possesses, or at the very least, should possess.
Architects face immense competition between each other, thus we end up undercutting ourselves on fees in pursuit of a commission. A developer may really like our work but could request that fees be lowered or we risk losing the commission. Regardless, the design process is governed by the client’s concern of increasing profit margins which can lead to unfulfilled aspirations for great design.
This cycle of devaluing the profession carries on because -in my opinion- we are slowly but surely becoming ‘service providers’ as opposed to the visionaries we are trained to be during our years of study.
What would it take to restore our title as master builders/visionaries?
Should future architects acquire the skills necessary to become developers?
Comments