How do you reckon with power dynamics between architects and developers? Plus a balance with designing for the people who actually have to experience the buildings?
Modern city construction is largely steel I bar built into concrete stacks which are clad - is a facade enough to insert character and design into?
In my experience, the power dynamic is pretty imbalanced in the direction of developers. In many cases, developers act as clients who hire architects to create a product that meets financial and functional goals. Since they control budget and project scope, architects have limited agency.
It is the architect's job and responsibility to advocate for the users of a space, but negotiating with a developer is similar to negotiating with your boss: They will sometimes be open to changing their expectations or goals, but at the end of the day, it is their decision.
The facade alone is not enough to insert character into a project. The best architecture is about space, movement between different spaces, function, and efficiency. Therefore, interior space is just as important (if not more) than an exterior facade. The contemporary solution of a simply concrete and steel construction with some sort of cladding with limited ornament is a HUGE compromise. This is not what most architects want to build, but it is what people are willing to pay for.
This Q&A is like eavesdropping on a brilliant late-night architecture debate—equal parts practical wisdom and philosophical sparks. The way you balance technical nitty-gritty with big-picture musings on why design matters proves this newsletter’s secret sauce: treating buildings as cultural conversations with blueprints. Here’s to 5K more subscribers getting smarter about space.
Hey David, I have a question of boundaries. We have been working for over 30 years doing most of our designs first by hand, and then copying them with digital tools(which was a struggle at first) to finalize the details of the designs we do. We specialize in cliffhanger buildings, from hotels to houses, and we have hundreds of projects in our portfolio. We know there are a lot of AI tools out there that could be fed our designs to give us ideas of designs in new projects, but this feels like cheating, and we want to know where should we draw the line between using a tool to enhance our creative capabilities,, and giving up creative control to an AI.
Also, which AI tools would you recomend we try out in our studio? We do High-end houses and hotels, maximum 7 stories tall.
I appreciate the beautiful photos of architectural features you post as well as your commentary and thoughts. But isn’t it striking how often architectural photos have no people in them? Why do you think that is? It seems to me to inhibit the ability of the viewer to experience the space being shown.
The lack of people in architectural photography is super interesting considering that when architects produce renderings for clients or for our design process, we ALWAYS include people. We clearly understand that imagining how people use a space is important but this doesn't come across in architectural photography.
This occurs because of the dual-functionality of architecture. Buildings are both sculptural and functional. Often, architectural photography seeks to capture the sculptural/formal elements of a building instead of capturing how a building is used.
that being said, some photographers focus on how space is used. figures like Slim Aarons come to mind but his work doesn't feel like architectural photography. Feels more about culture to me.
I think this occurs because many photographers prefer to capture the sculptural elements of architecture. I would guess that this bias exists because capturing buildings as if they are sculptures has a novelty. Presenting buildings as sculpture is not how most of us interact with architecture, so it is interesting for viewers and photographers to observe buildings in this way.
To address your final point, This does inhibit the viewers ability to experience the space being show, but I don't think this is the goal of such photography. You can find examples of arch. photography in which experience is privileged, but most arch. photography is exploring form and clarity as opposed to human experience.
In writing, there's a phenomenon of "writing for other writers"; do you find that happens in architectural design as well? If so, what does designing for other designers look like?
At my college, engineers were required to take an ethics course. Is there similar ethical training for architects? What ethical questions/values do you think architectural designers ought to keep in mind when working in the field?
How do you reckon with power dynamics between architects and developers? Plus a balance with designing for the people who actually have to experience the buildings?
Modern city construction is largely steel I bar built into concrete stacks which are clad - is a facade enough to insert character and design into?
Thanks for the question, Henry!
In my experience, the power dynamic is pretty imbalanced in the direction of developers. In many cases, developers act as clients who hire architects to create a product that meets financial and functional goals. Since they control budget and project scope, architects have limited agency.
It is the architect's job and responsibility to advocate for the users of a space, but negotiating with a developer is similar to negotiating with your boss: They will sometimes be open to changing their expectations or goals, but at the end of the day, it is their decision.
The facade alone is not enough to insert character into a project. The best architecture is about space, movement between different spaces, function, and efficiency. Therefore, interior space is just as important (if not more) than an exterior facade. The contemporary solution of a simply concrete and steel construction with some sort of cladding with limited ornament is a HUGE compromise. This is not what most architects want to build, but it is what people are willing to pay for.
This Q&A is like eavesdropping on a brilliant late-night architecture debate—equal parts practical wisdom and philosophical sparks. The way you balance technical nitty-gritty with big-picture musings on why design matters proves this newsletter’s secret sauce: treating buildings as cultural conversations with blueprints. Here’s to 5K more subscribers getting smarter about space.
Hey David, I have a question of boundaries. We have been working for over 30 years doing most of our designs first by hand, and then copying them with digital tools(which was a struggle at first) to finalize the details of the designs we do. We specialize in cliffhanger buildings, from hotels to houses, and we have hundreds of projects in our portfolio. We know there are a lot of AI tools out there that could be fed our designs to give us ideas of designs in new projects, but this feels like cheating, and we want to know where should we draw the line between using a tool to enhance our creative capabilities,, and giving up creative control to an AI.
Also, which AI tools would you recomend we try out in our studio? We do High-end houses and hotels, maximum 7 stories tall.
Can you talk about the state of tract housing design and what’s going on with suburban architecture in general? It’s what most of us live around.
I appreciate the beautiful photos of architectural features you post as well as your commentary and thoughts. But isn’t it striking how often architectural photos have no people in them? Why do you think that is? It seems to me to inhibit the ability of the viewer to experience the space being shown.
Hi John, thank you for the question.
The lack of people in architectural photography is super interesting considering that when architects produce renderings for clients or for our design process, we ALWAYS include people. We clearly understand that imagining how people use a space is important but this doesn't come across in architectural photography.
This occurs because of the dual-functionality of architecture. Buildings are both sculptural and functional. Often, architectural photography seeks to capture the sculptural/formal elements of a building instead of capturing how a building is used.
that being said, some photographers focus on how space is used. figures like Slim Aarons come to mind but his work doesn't feel like architectural photography. Feels more about culture to me.
I think this occurs because many photographers prefer to capture the sculptural elements of architecture. I would guess that this bias exists because capturing buildings as if they are sculptures has a novelty. Presenting buildings as sculpture is not how most of us interact with architecture, so it is interesting for viewers and photographers to observe buildings in this way.
To address your final point, This does inhibit the viewers ability to experience the space being show, but I don't think this is the goal of such photography. You can find examples of arch. photography in which experience is privileged, but most arch. photography is exploring form and clarity as opposed to human experience.
In writing, there's a phenomenon of "writing for other writers"; do you find that happens in architectural design as well? If so, what does designing for other designers look like?
At my college, engineers were required to take an ethics course. Is there similar ethical training for architects? What ethical questions/values do you think architectural designers ought to keep in mind when working in the field?