Architects & Engineers should be required to have their name on their work
Earlier in the week I walked past the Eden Lofts at Chouteau & 18th. The name of the firm that designed the building was proudly carved into stone near the entry. It is a beautiful building, I’m sure they were proud.
This practice should be mandatory. You never see the firm name on a Wal-Mart or a Quik-Trip and given their lack of architectural character it is no wonder. Highway interchanges should include the name of the responsible firm. City intersections should tell you who is responsible for how they function.
My belief is that is more people had to put their name on their work we’d see much better work. Before the anti-government folks get all upset I want to make it clear I don’t want laws passed requiring this. It would just be nice if it was still a common practice.
– Steve Patterson
I agree to some extent, however an “architect of record” is required for most buildings and is public information. You can find the architect for most commercial building on this site: http://www.emporis.com
One, most government projects have plaques (usually inside) that list the project's architect(s) along with the politicians involved with the project. And two, having the information will give you what? So what if Boxes Are Us designed the latest Walgreens? Other than heaping ridicule on them in blogs, what impact will that have? They're obviously in business to make money and design buildings that a) satisfy their clients and b) comply with all applicable codes. They know it's not great (or even likely good) architecture (as “art”), but it IS a paycheck. Trust me, architects aren't afraid to take credit for their great projects, and even their good or fair projects. The hypothetical Boxes Are Us proudly markets what they do to those clients who want just boxes. Bottom line, architecture (and engineering), for 99%+ of its practitioners, is a business. Most of us want to do the best we can, but we can only “do” what our clients let us/are willing to pay for – money talks! Unless you plan on establishing some sort of design police, requiring the designer's name on every building will be about as useful as posting nutritional information in fast food restaurants . . .
The idea of making money is hardly a new concept. There was a time when building owners and their architects took pride in their buildings. Buildings today are disposable.
“If more people had to put their name on their work we’d see much better work.” Obviously, that isn't working for the vast majority of retailers out there, both chains and local one-offs – they seem more than willing to put there name up pretty much anyplace that they think they can make a buck. Plus, defining “good” design is a matter of both degree and taste. I sure wouldn't classify the Apple store in SF as a great, contextual, design solution (what was there before, under that modern facade?), although it does do a good job of both being urban and being consistent with Apple's design standards . . .
Apple's SF store was new construction and it incorporates a Bart stop on the end of the building.
Apple's SF store also involved the demolition of an older, and presumably “historic” structure(s). What constitutes “good” design is in the eye of the beholder, and I have never found Apple's stores, be they in malls or as flagship stores in many larger cities, to be particalarily appealling (too cold and sterile for my taste). Others obviously disagree, but I believe that their design model is as trendy, short-lived and disposable as McDonald's
http://www.terraserverusa.com/image.aspx?T=4&S=…
Bigger picture, I have a quick, negative reaction to the assumption that too many architects and engineers roll out of bed every day and say “What kind of POS can I excrete today?” You seem to assume that we work in some sort of idealistic bubble, free of budgetary, code and client constraints. In reality, we never start with a truly “clean sheet of paper”, especially with commercial clients. We need to maximize square footage and parking and we need to meet increasingly-tight budgets. We need to work with what's already there and we need to give the client the visual and the functional items they desire or require. We need to satisfy NIMBY neighbors and non-designer politicians. We're always having to make compromises – life is never, ever as purely design-driven as it may seem in grad school. The ONLY designers that have anything approaching a free hand, when it comes to design decisions, are design-build developers, and they still need to market a product the market will buy or lease.
Too many people, in all jobs, do the minimum to get by. In earlier times a great building was a status symbol for the owner. We need more end users to own their own buildings and to take pride in them.
The Apple SF store on Stockton is in a retail area with new & old buildings. Apple builds new as well as restores the old, just depends. They recognize the value of good design over cheap design.
There is a dramatic dearth of even the simple CORNERSTONE on buildings after the mid-70s. Nothing to indicate who made it, or even something as simple as the DATE! A cornerstone is not expensive, even for the most tapped-out construction budget, so what gives?
Crappy buildings with no personality = no pride of creative ownership?
Thanks for youching on one of my Top 10 Pet Peeves.
Throughout Latin America this is very common. Go to Santiago or Buenos Aires and most every substantial building has the name of architects emblazoned on the front of the building.
I spent a month in Barcelona discovering buildings. Many of their buildings have engraved credits given to their creators. I started making connections and looking people up. This man was an understudy of that man, etc. Very interesting. I totally agree with you.
Part of the deal is they used to build buildings to last for generations, instead of the disposal architecture our developer based “get and go” mentality has wrought. I am optimistic that this is changing, in part due to life cycle cost becoming something people actually contemplate now. As for us, any client willing to allow us to put our name on the building or space, we will be proud to do it.
Unfortunately I think you over-estimate the Architects role and influence on the over the majority of the built environment. In my experience what often happens is that despite ones best efforts as an Architect, the Client dictates the aesthetic-or even planning strategies. Many times over the Architects strenuous objections. So while it can at times be fair to slam a firm for a less then well designed building, it can also be extremely unfair to do so without knowing the story behind the end result. As any firm that has earned a design award can attest to – the main common denominator in their award winning projects is the quality level of their client. I have always felt that award winning design is more of a testament to the client then it is the Architect. If Wall Marts Architects were required to put their names on the buildings, they would still look like Wallmarts.