You are right. We should be involved in all aspects of the housing market but as previous posts have pointed out, we let that market slip through our fingers and it will take major changes in not just the contracting profession but also in the real estate, appraisal and code authority professions to get it back. Rather than carry on the fight in the regulatory arena, I think our best bet is to work within the system and marginalize the non-licensed designers. I do see this beginning to happen, btw. The codes are getting much stricter and code officilals, in my area at least, are advising builders to hire professionals that can seal the documents. I get a preverse joy out of telling builders and home owners that no, I cannot seal the plans they ordered from a magazine or had their draftsman cousin prepare.
Like you, I do work with a lot of builders doing renovation work. This is a good market for us because there are no cheap sources of plans and it takes a lot of skills that the faux architects just donot have.
Thad A. Broom AIA, P.C.
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-14-2011 08:41
From: Eric Rawlings
Subject: Re: Camels on the Head of a Pin
Thad, I love hearing stories like yours. My hope is that more Architects will consider the residential market, but there is only so much room for competition in the least numerous wealthy end user category. As a sole proprietor, I've found that I can make more money on residential projects than commercial, but you have to be diligent about keeping your clients from piddling around and soaking you for your time. It's not about the total fee, it's about the time spent per dollar earned. I would urge you to consider encouraging unique spec houses with some of your builders. There is a difference between a repetitious, mass produced box and a one time design for a unique home built to sell. We Architects cannot make a real impact on the residential market until we get involved in the spec market. I'm not kidding, 82% of all single family homes are spec houses and this is because most people can't afford to pay for rent and a mortgage on a property while it's under construction. End user houses will always be few and far between. As Architects, we must recognize where the market opportunities are and the areas that need the most help. Spec houses fit both categories.
I live in an urban neighborhood where most of the houses date back to the 1920s. There are many renovations happening here. Renovators are great spec clients because each project has to be different. Once I groom these guys and gals into thinking of each property as a unique solution, we move on to new construction. I make my best money on these spec houses and they all turn out rather nice. I had two spec houses sell for over $700K in 2009, right after the crash and the average houses go for $500K. Nothing else sold in the neighborhood the rest of that year. The spec builders want to pick finishes, detail the kitchens, etc. because this is how they compete with one another. For this type of work, I provide the Architectural solution and let them run with it. In this case the builder is the client and it's their privilege to make these decisions, as they have to sell it. This allows me to crank out far more houses and reach out to residential clients that never get to experience Architectural solutions. I have several builders using my plans one time per project and have eliminated that many ugly builder boxes in my neighborhood. You can do the same. Make them compete with design.
Wealthy end users provide me with the most exciting projects, but don't write off spec work, as this sector encompasses the masses that don't get us, don't understand the difference between a box and Architecture because we deny them the opportunity. We must insert ourselves in all aspects, especially the areas where we are most absent. Sorry for the lengthy sales pitch, but I hope I may have at least provided you with a different perspective in an area where you could make much better money than you may have thought while providing great design to those who never see it. Why do we always seem only sell ourselves to the few people that already get it? We need to capture the larger audience if Architects are going to remain relevant. If we want to change America's minds about what we can do, we need to quit being artistic snobs and find a way to offer our services to the masses. The more we take this exclusive stance, the more we back ourselves into the corner of irrelevance. How many of you are still struggling to find the exclusive work right now? I'm doing high brow and low brow work and it's all a massive improvement over what was happening here before I arrived. Just because the design challenge has a tighter budget, doesn't mean you can't make a tremendous difference.
-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-13-2011 10:20
From: Thad Broom
Subject: Re: Camels on the Head of a Pin
I have been involved in residential architecture for 15 years now and did pretty well up to two years ago when that market collapsed. My phone is beginning to ring again so hopefully, the market is returning. Residential architecture is not as profitable as commercial but I find it to be more satisfying and something I can do from my home studio. By using Revit, I am able to automate a lot of what I use to spend hours doing thus reducing production time and cost. Am I as cheap as the draftsman? Of course not and I make no bones about telling people that I am not the cheapest alternative and then I educate them them as to why. Unfortunately, HGTV has trivialized the design process. Viewers see a wonderful transformation springing from one artsy sketch and never see all that is actually involved in the design process or what is required to simply get a building permit.
I recommend joining and becoming active in a local builder's association. I network with lots of builders and have gained their respect. Do I design spec homes for them? No and I really donot want to. In fact, I tell my builders that I'm not interested in designing tract homes. Spec homes by nature have to have minimal up front cost and the builder has to focus on marketing to a broad market, not my cup of tea. However those same builders do turn to me when they have a custom home client. I usually work directly with the client and he pays my fee but I keep the builder in the loop at all times and the client perceives us as a team. I currently get referrals from about 5 builders and from clients referred to me by builders. In fact, I am currently designing the personal home for one of my builders. I am also a member of our builder's association's green building council and am actively working with builders to promote sustainable design in our community. In this role, I have become recognized both a team member and as a green design guru whom builders turn to for advice.
So, rather than fight the system, I suggest learning how it works and seeing if there is some way that you can fit within that system. If enough of us do that, hopefully the builder community and the general public will come to see as we really are and not as the over paid "Howard Roark's" that Ayn Rand painted us to be .Note my email signature below. Its jarring but gets a message across.
A HOME BUILT TO CODE IS THE WORST THAT CAN BE BUILT UNDER THE LAW. WANT SOMETHING BETTER? CALL AN AIA ARCHITECT
-------------------------------------------
Thad Broom AIA
Architect
Thad A. Broom AIA, P.C.
Virginia Beach VA
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-10-2011 07:20
From: Eric Rawlings
Subject: Re: Camels on the Head of a Pin
Mr. Ytterberg, I think the topic drifted to value for a reason. We Architects feel like we have untapped abilities because society has limited our involvement in the building industry. Not only has Corporate America insisted we design ugly buildings to suit their persona, but the residential train left without us a long time ago leaving us with fewer opportunities for decent projects. Residential work is the key to connecting with the regular guy. When the average person is not exposed to what "could be" and they're lives are supersaturated with the worst construction model in history, this is what they see as the norm and begin to like it. 82% of all new single family dwellings are spec houses and single family dwellings are by far the most numerous building type and by far the most widely used building by Americans. When people realize we don't design these buildings, they wonder what we're good for.
People want THIS MUCH, but the only want to pay this much.
Architects feel underutilized in this country, because we and society discourage our services. Regular people are the key to our relevance, but they aren't going to pay half their annual salary on a design. If we bury our heads in mostly commercial work, we will continue our path into the history books as another soon to be extinct job title like the mason who actually built fireplaces or the structure of the building. Now the mason is lucky to skin the building and will be replaced by a quicker, easier, less skilled method of making it look just like brick. The word Architect is often said to mean Master Builder, but it is actually translated directly from Greek as Head Mason and this is exactly what they did in ancient times when masonry was the most important material for the most important buildings. We are becoming more specialized and marginalized and are likely to follow the rest of the masons if we don't make ourselves available to everyone.
A story about a failure will always be more interesting to our sick society than a success. Everyone wants to debunk the Architect. Sure, we're not perfect and I think this desire to be has set us up for the easy fall. Notice how the builder doesn't take the perfection stance and in turn lowers expectations? Even our spec books tell us how imperfect they can be using tolerances. There is no tolerance for us being imperfect, as we have ensured. I really feel we all have the skills to do much better when it comes to design, we're just terrible business people. We can't recognize where we're needed, how to insert ourselves into the most lucrative sector, or how to roll with the punches as society evolves. We have a choice, adapt or die.
-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2011 22:47
From: Michael Ytterberg
Subject: Re: Camels on the Head of a Pin
This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Residential Knowledge Community and Committee on Design .
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Michael Ytterberg AIA
Principal
BLT Architects
Philadelphia PA
-------------------------------------------
Whew! Originally this discussion was intiated by a question whether the Committee on Design could be concerned with knowledege creation as the other committees are. For me, the term that comes to mind is "Design Research." In the meantime most respondents seem to suggest that achitects know all they need to know, that talent is the most important thing, and that the Committee on Design should be concerned with PR - spreading the word in the larger community about the essential contrubution that architects have that will benefit all of society if only they were smart enough.
Other design disciplines are not so self satisfied as architects, but assume that the public - the consumer - might actually be worth studying in order to create products that serve humanity (and that people may want to spend their hard earned money on, by the way).
Donald Norman has written a series of books that architects would do well to read: The Design of Everyday Things, and Emotional Design: Why We Love or Hate Everyday Things. Virginia Posttrel has written about The Substance of Style.
But architects are taught that they know what people should want. Modernism has always been, and continues to be, following Marx, a critique of modernity. This ideology has been drilled into us in the academy for the past sixty plus years, and shows no sign of abating. We don't ask, we know how people should live their lives! And they won't listen!
What bull shit!!
We refuse to accept, as the authors mentioned above do accept, that meaning is everywhere. Humans cannot live in the world without ascribing meaning to every object, to every encounter with the physical world. Beauty is one of the words we use to describe a part of the emotional response we have to the world. Beyond mere function, architecture is consumed with the creation of meaning. People spend money for meaning. This is what separates us from the engineers. And it is not as if function can ever be separated from meaning!!
I'll leave it at that for now and continue later on what we might profitably study in order to make architect that seves society's needs and not just that of architects.