Beauty Over Function?
Why not the opposite?
As construction counsel who has represented countless architects over the course of my 40+ year career, I’ve always been fascinated by how critics have reviewed architecture projects that appear in industry magazines. I recently read “Confessions of a Former Design Magazine Editor.” and was intrigued by the premise of this article.
The author, Martin C. Pedersen, served as executive editor at Metropolis magazine for fifteen years, and his article is kind of a confession piece about why architecture articles on projects always seem to emphasize form and aesthetics over function. In a self-deprecating style, he writes about how he used to edit project features, “after some trial and error (mostly error, on my part…), I eventually learned the ground rules, both spoken and unspoken…” about how such project feature articles were selected and written.
Pedersen cites a number of obvious rules for why an architect might lobby to have its work published. He also cites some not so obvious (and mildly entertaining) rules such as being wary of buildings that photograph better at night, how to tell which articles are puff pieces, and why those that look “good on the page” may have very little, or even no connection, to the functional uses of the building or the owner’s/occupants’ satisfaction with it. This last one stuck with me.
After reading Pedersen’s article, all my prior doubts and questions about the way these articles are written got me thinking. Has it gotten to the point that writing about building form and aesthetics is more important than examining the logistics and costs of constructing it? How satisfied was the client by the outcome and by the services they received from the design and construction team? Was the project wildly over budget? Did the architect’s signature design provide the functionality the client sought from the outset?
With that in mind, I thought I would give Mr. Pedersen, his fellow critics, and their editors who select buildings to review for publications a few “New Rules” of my own (with apologies to Bill Maher) that might provide an enlightened way to review buildings going forward:
NEW RULE #1: If the architect or owner isn’t willing to share how much the initial construction budget was and what the final cost was, you can bet there were serious cost overruns of 25% or more. Did the client absorb these costs (or were they passed along to customers or the public)?
NEW RULE #2: If the architect, CM, or owner isn’t willing to share how many RFIs and Change Orders caused delays to the project’s completion, you can bet it was a lot. No one will want to air dirty laundry in an article extolling the project features, but you can tell a lot from this answer (or avoidance of an answer) and whether the design issued to the CM was complete and coordinated or whether it was another “fast track” disaster with unwarranted cost overruns.
NEW RULE #3: How about waiting to write an article about a building until at least a year after occupancy, and interview everyone from occupants to facility managers to ask if the building is performing as designed (and promised)?
NEW RULE #4: If the architect, CM, or owner don’t want to comment on the product selection and procurement process, is it because there were delays related to discontinued products or a mis-application of materials? And what lessons were learned that might be valuable to the article’s readership?
Further to my last New Rule, we’re happy to report that a lot of architecture project teams have finally started recognizing the value and benefit of utilizing knowledge management tools, like Arazoo. Such tools should enable your teams to collect and organize crucial project information and make it easier than ever for them to collaborate with colleagues and ensure everyone has the latest information and knowledge at their fingertips. This is the promise of today’s digital technology. Workflow tools like these have been readily adopted in nearly every other major industry. In ours, better late than never. Tools like these make individuals smarter and significantly increase the firm’s collective knowledge by making lessons learned on prior projects available to anyone in the firm.
Staying competitive depends on the quality of your firm’s work and its reputation for delivering not only great design but great outcomes where all project stakeholders are satisfied. Next time your Director of Marketing pitches a project feature to an editor, think about my New Rules and see if there’s a way to set your firm apart from everyone else who’s competing to simply publish the sleekest photographs.
