I just spent a good portion of my night reading the first four chapters of The Architect’s Handbook of Professional Practice, which covers “Clients”. The textbook is issued by the AIA and required for my Professional Practice class, along with Professional Practice 101, a collection of essays. Surprisingly, the books are an enjoyable read (I say surprisingly, because the class is not as enjoyable). The readings are thought-provoking and somewhat informative. I usually don’t find myself yearning to do research after reading a textbook, but with these books, I am.
Anyway, these chapters covered some interesting points. The first chapter began with the fact that architectural services are a somewhat new phenomenon. The earliest people built their own shelter – they did not have to follow city codes or get an architect’s stamp to proceed with construction. Only in 1868 did the US have its first architectural school at MIT. Since then, architects have become self-governed and licensed, and now, the services of an architect are required on almost all building types. These facts explain why there is such a broad spectrum of client types. “Patrons” are the clients who have been commissioning work to architects since the early ages, and are accustomed to working with a designer. “New clients” have never worked with an architect before and are being forced to by legal requirements. The client’s experience/lack of experience with an architect has a big impact on their values and perceived outcome for the design project.
There are five concepts that influence a client’s decision making process – promotion, product, people, place and price (these five concepts do not solely apply to architecture, but to other industries as well). The client will inevitably place different amounts of value on each of these concepts, whether they are aware of it or not. A client who wants cheap costs from a local architect is placing value on place and price. A client who wants an award winning product from an all star architect is placing value on product and people.
For any project to be successful (in any industry), the service provider’s values have to be similar with those of the client – or there will have to be a lot of compromise, most likely on the service provider’s side. This is not to say that an architect should deny a commission because the client wanted a more pragmatic building, but that the architect should study the client and develop a relationship with them to find out what their values are (before taking the job is possible). The book spells this out so easily, but that is where the simplicity ends. I think that a lot of architects are so desperate for work they will whore themselves out for any job, doing whatever the clients asks. And on the other hand, there are the architectural artists, who ignore their clients completely. All service based industries revolve around the satisfaction of the client – if they are not content with their services, you are guaranteed to have very little business. But how do architects find the clients that match their ideals? How do clients find the architects that share their values?
I am beginning to explore the idea of architect-client match making (Is there a “sole mate” client for each architect? How do these clients find their way to an architect? Must architects rely on their firm to connect them to these clients?). I am writing for CORE (Iowa State University’s student run architectural journal) this semester, and the topic is Responsible Design. I would like to somehow integrate these ideas into that subject, perhaps by doing some case study work. My hypothesis is that the “sole mate” client-architect team will have a more responsible design than the architect who whores himself to the client’s wishes. Of course, this is assuming that the values of all licensed architects are in the best interest of the public, and that may not be the case. It seems I will have to fine tune these ideas a bit more.
