15 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Architects are spec-work whores.

They work for peanuts.

I know not why.

15 Jan 2003 | The Four Lads said...

It's nobody's business but the Turks'.

15 Jan 2003 | Steven Garrity said...

Istanbul was Constantinople by They Might Be Giants:

"Even old New York, was once New Amsterdam. Why they changed it I can't say. I guess people liked it better that way!"

16 Jan 2003 | I said...

did you know that atatrk also introduced family names? i read about that recently. people were free to choose any name, so turkish families usually have names la "mightiest of all turks" or "send em greeks to hell" .

16 Jan 2003 | Urbanchords said...

16 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Urban:

Please do! It's always fascinated me. There seems to be a hierarchy of design professions and the amount of respect they demand in terms of respectable fees from their work. It seems to go (from high to low) as...

$ /\
Fashion Designers
Interior Designers (NOT decorators!)
Photographers/Illustrators
Graphic Designers
Industrial Designers
Architects
$ \/

That's by no means exhaustive, but it seems to hold true. I had an architect ask me once if I thought that the $25 an hour he was charging was too much. I was dumfounded. He went on to tell me that at the firm he used to work for, his time was only billed at $45 an hour.

On top of that, an architect needs a masters before ever making a real income. Strange. Really strange.

16 Jan 2003 | Mart said...

I hope the tic-tac-toe design doesn't win. It looks like jail cell bars.

16 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

Mart said: "I hope the tic-tac-toe design doesn't win. It looks like jail cell bars"

It reminds me of a military cemetery. I find it very depressing.

16 Jan 2003 | lt said...

can anyone point me in the right direction to see the submissions for this project?

16 Jan 2003 | steve said...

Concepts here.

16 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

can anyone point me in the right direction to see the submissions for this project?
---
http://www.renewnyc.org

4o,ooo for 7 pitches = 280,000!
Your tax dollars should be going into building tanks and guns and bombs, not into some snob-nosed architectspockets! (But I guess once the "Chevron gang" have taken over Iraq, it wont matter - hey we americans probably wont have to pay taxes anymore, just like the Saudis!)

16 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

no but seriously, it would be interesting to know what concepts they came up for the safety/usability design parts. I only read one of the pitches in depth and didnt find anything about it.

16 Jan 2003 | Scott M. said...

Well, Constantinople really became Istanbul in 1453 when Mehmet the Conqueror finally broke through the walls and took the City. At that point the Great City was a shadow of its former self. As I recall the Greeks only had 7,000 or so men who could defend the city (according to contemporary historian George Sphrantzes). After Mehmet took control he actually forced people from Anatolia and surrounding Rumelia to move into the city in an effort to revitalize what would be his capital. And he did a pretty good job, actually.

It is a testament to the glory that was Byzantium that it took so long for the name Istanbul to take hold. Other cities changed pretty quickly (Adrianople --> Edirne). You know when you think of the Greeks you generally think of classical Athens/Sparta (at least I used to). Thing is, the empire of Byzantium lasted over 1,000 years.

Blah blah blah history I'll shut up now.

16 Jan 2003 | snarkbait said...

40,000 dollars seems like a lot for an idea. I don't think they went hog wild on the actual mechanics of their designs - though, maybe I am wrong.

Perhaps that's where the big money is Mr. Gehry - for you it would be 40k to tear pieces of paper up and lay them on top of another (ok, that's not fair). There also is the privilege of being the company that resurrected the new World Trade Center - that would be worth a lot to me.

Maybe he's upset that he balked at the price and found himself left out of one of the most important architectural events...ever.

16 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

This clearly isn't one of the most important architectural events ever. If it were, they wouldn't be doing this silly contest.

$40,000 for a comprehensive proposal is peanuts compared to the actual cost and impact of such a large development.

16 Jan 2003 | snarkbait said...

You really don't think so? Maybe the ellipses followed by ever was a tad dramatic, but it's a big deal from a sentimental standpoint - at least for some. It's bigger than the Millennium Wheel and that was important right? 82 World's Fair Sun Sphere? Anybody?

16 Jan 2003 | mephisto said...

Greek maps still call it constantinople (kostadinopouli)- it is a sore point for us Greeks

16 Jan 2003 | JF said...

40,000 dollars seems like a lot for an idea. I don't think they went hog wild on the actual mechanics of their designs - though, maybe I am wrong.

Is it a lot for an idea if that idea cost you $80,000 in time and resources? Ideas take work.

17 Jan 2003 | Mart said...

Seems to me that $40K is a liveable yearly wage. I wish I earnt that much. If Gehry can't be bothered/afford to put together a spec proposal for that amount for an architectural project in the center of the known universe then what world does he live in? Shame on him and, by the way, shame on the uninspiring proposals thus far submitted...

17 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

17 Jan 2003 | snarkbait said...

JF, I understand that ideas can take a lot of work and can cost money, but do you ever look past the money on certain projects? Like the prestige or creative license that might come with it?

Well, it's not like Gehry needs this project to make his portfolio. Then again his refusal to even try is testimony to the American way - money talks.

17 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

"Like the prestige or creative license that might come with it?"

One should never take a job or a profession out of 'prestige'. Prestige does not pay the bills.

Creative license? This is going to be design-by-committee at its worst.

BTW, I don't really know the specifics, but I think these are more than ideas, are they not? Are these not viable proposals (as ugly as they are!)

Personally, they should lot of a space there for a memorial of some sort but let the development just be business-as-usual...not some silly contest.

BTW, 40,00 isn't a liveable wage for a year when you consider that taxes, insurance, rent, office supplies, equipment, staff, software, etc. all have to come out of that. 40k is nothing for proposing designs for a skyscraper. A good rule of thumb is that you should be paying your architect at least 10% of the cost of the structure.

17 Jan 2003 | Urbanchords said...

Darrel: They are just ideas. They Port Authority has no obligation to take any of the proposals. It was just an idea generating exercience. To think of better ideas after the orginial sterile go around. (Remember that is round two.) Do you want the first ones?

The $40,000 they got paid was to cover expenses. It probably cost them $100,000 and more. Those models really are $40,000 a piece. That is not their salary. Most of those big guys make a good six figures a year, at least. For the pay of normal licensed architects, we get paid more than that. Architect III makes $70,000. (AIA Salary Survey, 1997.) This is not what we bill a client. There is a multiplier in there to pay for "taxes, insurance, office supplies, equipment, staff, software, etc." But I don't want to explain business tactics.

Also did the Vietnam Memerial not make Maya Lin famous? I think so. Why are all the famous art musuems hiring all the worlds famous architects? For the prestige. Look how much press the Guggenhiem (in Bilboa, Spain) and the Getty Center (in LA) got when they opened. People went to Bilboa just to see the building, not the art. Same for the Experience Music Project in Seattle. It is the prestige that gets your name out there. So that people come to you, not you to them. Once again I am going into business tatics.

17 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

Seems to me that $40K is a liveable yearly wage. I wish I earnt that much. If Gehry can't be bothered/afford to put together a spec proposal for that amount for an architectural project in the center of the known universe then what world does he live in? Shame on him and, by the way, shame on the uninspiring proposals thus far submitted...

Even if $40k is a liveable wage (it all depends on where one is living), Gehry doesn't have to just pay for himself. Architects don't work in isolation; he has a staff he has to pay for their time spent on the proposal, the expenses of the model itself, etc.

And why should there be shame on Gehry for deciding not to participate? His choice, just like it's his choice to participate or not in any project. Just because it's a WTC rebuild doesn't mean he has some sort of civic obligation to be a part of it. He made a business decision, and to criticize him for it is daft, IMO.

Now, for the shame on the designs comment: Yes! There were only one or two that were remotely serviceable, from where I sit. This is the problem with something of this scale and magnitude; everyone feels this is their chance to make their mark, rather than just going about designing something that that's distinctive yet fits within the environment, as good architecture should do.

17 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

UrbanChords:

I understand the whole cost thing. I agree that 40,000 wasn't anything to work with.

Yes, the Vietnam Memorial made Maya Lin famous. It also wasn't built, either, and the project was a nightmare to push through (just like the Guggenhiem was for FLW). Those types of projects RARELY come to fruition. Most of the time, any 'public works' project ends up being a rather large compromise.

So, with that said, I think it's dangerous for an architect to take on a job like this in the hopes of building prestige.

The # of architects (or web designers, or graphic designers, or industrial designers) that hit the jackpot with prestige are a minute segment of the profession. And luck as a lot to do with it.

As for business tactics, please do elaborate. I am sincerely interested in why the architecture profession seems to have a habit of spec work. Everyone I know working for or as an architect is ALWAYS working on elaborate proposals to win a job. Many of these proposals cross the line and actually go into spec work and, from my perspective, the industry is weakening its perceived value as such.

That of course doesn't answer the absence of any real residential architecture any more...another interesting topic...

As for why the proposals suck. It's probably because the better architecture firms know a scam for free work when they see it. ;o)

17 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

I'm an idiot with my typos...

"It also wasn't built, either"

should have read

"It almost wasn't built, either"

duh.

17 Jan 2003 | Urbanchords said...

Darrel:

Who does all the building in America? The developers. What do developers want? Quick and cheap buildings. A quick turn around on their money. They have to get an architect, so that they can get a permit to build them. Developer makes his money. Architect feeds his family.

With building you have to draw a fine line between space and quality. You can only afford so much of either. You want a bigger building, you get less quality. You want more quality, you get less space. You want more space and more quality, you pay more money.

A developer can make more money if you can rent more square feet and lessen the quality of finish. Where do you live? I have a challenge for you. Go to your downtown and look at the level of finish in the building. Nice marble floors and a lot of details, huh? So to the suburbs to that new "business park" that they just built. The building is HUGE but it lacks any kind of character. More than likely because the tenant of the building didn't want to pay for his employees to have a nice space, they just wanted more space. People move into downtown areas for the prestige, not the space. The prestige comes with higher level of finish.

As for residential architecture, go back to the suburbs. Who is building the homes? The developers again. Again looking for a quick buck. Ah, the American way. They buy a couple of home plans at a trade show and BOOM, they have an instant neighborhood.

We buy the homes because we want more space instead of quality. There are always people that are going to give you a lower quality product for a cheaper price. It is the free market system. Why do you think that they are so many Wal-Marts?

As many of the "other" designers know, it is hard to sell the idea of design. The importance of why it should work better. Why it should last longer. Is this not the purpose of 37 signals?

Americans have become a society of consumption. We want the largest amount of things for the cheapest amount. How much fast food do you eat? This is "spec" food. Try going down to your local resturant and spend more for better tasting food. Same idea. It actuallity, people normally want food cheap, quick, and something familiar. Large chains come in that can buy in bulk and then push the local stores out of business. This is why there is a Best Buy in Wicker Park in Chicago.

17 Jan 2003 | JF said...

Even if $40k is a liveable wage (it all depends on where one is living), Gehry doesn't have to just pay for himself. Architects don't work in isolation; he has a staff he has to pay for their time spent on the proposal, the expenses of the model itself, etc.

And why should there be shame on Gehry for deciding not to participate? His choice, just like it's his choice to participate or not in any project. Just because it's a WTC rebuild doesn't mean he has some sort of civic obligation to be a part of it. He made a business decision, and to criticize him for it is daft, IMO.

Thank you Steve!

17 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Who does all the building in America? The developers. What do developers want? Quick and cheap buildings.

Yea, well, therein lies the problem. We're cheap, tasteless bastards in this country. ;o)

I'm not sure if I agree with the space/quality ratio, though. Given a certain budget, I bet an experienced architect could actually build a bigger house for less money than the cookie-cutter generica loving developer. Granted, it may make use of non-traditional materials and such, and John Doe Suburbanite by up his nose at it, but it can still be a quality dwelling.

In fact, we can't afford a vinyl clad McMansion, so we're going to hire an architect. Because they can design something of quality and efficiency so much better than the more expensive house-farm in the burbs.

Anyways, I pretty much agree with all you said. My question is, what is the architecture profession doing to show that they posses some value? Why doesn't John Doe Suburbanite think to hire an architect? Do they think it's too expensive? Too snobby?

As many of the "other" designers know, it is hard to sell the idea of design.

In this country, yes, it's very hard to sell design without it seeming as an 'extra' bell and whistle. But I don't see the habit of architects doing spec work as a means to help that in any way. That's where I'm perplexed.

I think the issue is that 'designed' does NOT equal 'more expensive'. That seems to be the biggest misperception.

17 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

And why should there be shame on Gehry for deciding not to participate? His choice, just like it's his choice to participate or not in any project. Just because it's a WTC rebuild doesn't mean he has some sort of civic obligation to be a part of it. He made a business decision, and to criticize him for it is daft, IMO.
---
thank you. its his right to reject and his right to explain why if asked.

18 Jan 2003 | ek said...

He certainly has every right to reject participation in the project and every right to explain why he decided not to, but to call it "demeaning"? That, to me, is sad because it says that he defines his self worth based solely on the dollar value of his commissions.

If he had said simply that he couldn't participate because the commission would not have come close to covering his costs or if he had said that he simply didn't want to get involved or if he said nothing at all I would have had no problem with it.

18 Jan 2003 | ek said...

Oops, posted before I meant to. I was going to add to the end of the previous post that since he wouldn't give a damn what I think anyway who really cares?

19 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

Im not familiar with what big-time architects make "normally" and how much work goes into this kind of pitch. Im assuming a lot. He really might have felt it was demeaning - I think the total amount that they set aside for the presentations was probably mediorcre, considering what theyre rebuilding and how much money they probably have. But the fact that other "Big Names", like Liebeskind, presented without complaint shows that there may be some truth to what you say.

20 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

That, to me, is sad because it says that he defines his self worth based solely on the dollar value of his commissions.

It's spec work. Spec work is demeaning.

That said, no one is forced into doing spec work.

But the fact that other "Big Names", like Liebeskind, presented without complaint shows that there may be some truth to what you say.

I think that's more indicitive of the wide spread acceptance of doing spec work in the architecture profession.

22 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

$100,000 isn't a livable wage if you're used to living on $250,000. It's all relative.

There's an old adage: "You get what you pay for".

23 Jan 2003 | sad said...

absolutely shameful. gehry of all people should realize that there is such a thing as giving back (ie: charities or the public good)... especially after his well earned fame and reputation. he really is an old fart. think about it -- is there any other project on earth not worthy? beyond that, he would more than recoup costs if he won.

23 Jan 2003 | JF said...

absolutely shameful. gehry of all people should realize that there is such a thing as giving back (ie: charities or the public good)... especially after his well earned fame and reputation. he really is an old fart. think about it -- is there any other project on earth not worthy? beyond that, he would more than recoup costs if he won.

How do you know how much he gives back? He may give back plenty.

I'll never understand your "he has an obligation" attitude to take on the risk for the rest of the world. He's an architect, not a speculator.

I still haven't heard a single good reason why he should do work for less than his costs. I'm listening.

23 Jan 2003 | snarkbait said...

Fromthe grave...

13 Nov 2003 | GREG said...

The questions I ask with respect to the importance of the design of architecture are: 1st - When it comes to clothing should we all just wair the same sweat suit or do we chose to reflect our values -whether its practicality, eccentricity, or morality, ect? 2nd - When it comes to reading do we settle with the simplicity of children's books or do we acknowledged the literature that lets us grow emotionally, consciencously, and spiritually? 3rd - Do we settle with rudimentary math or do we strive to use it as a tool to better understand natural phenomenon? Can buildings be less like a box and more like an experience or a story? Architecture, at its best, can be understood as the manifestation and concretization of a society's consciencousness. It can symbolize, in large (albeit psuedo public) projects such as the new wto, the evolution of humanity, the understanding of the environment, and the morality and courage of a generation. If we chose to settle with the status quo, if we refuse to accept humility in our opinions and the appreciation for the best that humankind can offer and achieve, we are no longer humans - we will be lowered to level of ants (metaphorically), and made into machines (quite possibly), purely functional. We need things, we get things, without any regard to the emotional and physical price of life. That is what the twin towers stood for: the worship of functionality, the cathederal towers of money and power, with a 21-gun salute and canon salvoes, instead of church bells ringing. Functionality has led our society and our government to ignor humanity by making unholy alliances in pursuit of our "country's" self-interest. I'm am pleased with the Libeskind Design. I believe it was both successful in both its functionality and symbology and also because I personally do not have anything better to offer either. It is graceful and empowering, humbly rising into the sky in the pursuit of liberty and equality (cliche), yet never reaching showing us that idea and dream of America is not yet finished and the responsiblity that lies with ourselves and future generations to complete.

Greg

P.S. Some people are at odds with the pit. My argurment is that future generations need to know how painful the attack was to better understand where America is now and where it is going. The event must be understood from ground zero as it should lift your eyes up to the remarkable potential for humankind.

20 Nov 2003 | insurance company said...

money money money

17 Jan 2004 | Holland said...

If an application is designed well, the reward for users is that they will learn it faster, accomplish their daily tasks more easily, and have fewer questions for the help desk. As a developer of a well-designed application, your returns on that investment are more upgrade revenue, reduced tech support, better reviews, less documentation, and higher customer satisfaction. The rewards of building a good-looking Aqua application are worth taking the extra time.