A client recently said to me that I “must be a developer at heart.” Many architects would cringe at that thought…but, I take it as a compliment.
Architects are many things – builders, artists, therapists – but, a developer? Yes, there is a trend for architects to develop and construct their own projects (the motivation for this is another blog topic). There seems to be a line in the sand between developers and architects. Here’s the stereotype: Developers view architects as a necessary evil in the project, another line item cost, someone who wants to “make a statement;” architects view developers as the necessary evil to gaining a commission, they have the money, someone unappreciative of our art.
Economics is what makes my job possible. If a project doesn’t provide a profit to the developer, it won’t happen. So what is the architect’s role? We are given a kit of parts to work from – steel, brick, concrete, wood – and we mold and transform and arrange the materials to create a functional, visually pleasing building. Architects take pride in utilizing materials in an innovative way. But, what of the financial aspects? Are we to merely design to meet budget?
Your client’s bottom line goal is to make money for the investor. Sure, everyone likes a good looking building, but projects aren’t built for the sake of building art (that’s called sculpture). They’re built to make someone money, directly or indirectly. As an architect, I believe that a major part of our role is to maximize the return on investment. Our expertise, our ability to visualize, our innovation, these can all be used to mold and transform and arrange the bottom line. Whether it be through the use of better materials, higher densities, or shorter schedules.
I believe more architects should think like a developer. They might find themselves with more work.
[ 0 comments ]
