Doing what good architects are good at

I think the future office needs to focus on what good architects are good at, and what others are unable to do, or to easily do.

I think there are two sides to this.

The first and most important is the creative / design / idea / artistic realm. For someone about to spend a lot of money on a building they will want to be sure that what they are about to build is the best design they’re able to get for what they’re about to spend. I think it’s important for architects to focus primarily on this because it’s hugely important and is fundamental to all projects, and it’s what others in the property / building realm will never be able to do. Also consider that others (clients etc.) don’t know what ‘good’ is, so rely on the expert (the one the black skivvy and Braun watch) to tell them what they should like. The architect should be the professional who drives and sets the agenda for quality.

For the client the absolute validation of the value of the architect is when they see the building.

The second is the surety of delivery of this fantastic design. This means not only being good enough to deliver accurate drawings (in whatever form) quickly and efficiently and on time and to program, that translate the good early ideas into the final detailed outcome, but also being involved during construction to help the clients build what they’re expecting to be built. For the client the absolute validation of the value of the architect is when they see the building. They’ve sold the design so the architect is obligated to see the project through to the end.

What this also means is that there are roles where architects should leave to others, such as property development, building, project management etc. I also think you can’t just do the second part. There will be plenty around who will be able to get a project completed with certainty, and do it better than an architect, but it might be average. Documentation firms I think are on a race to the bottom, and ultimately the cheapest will win, if they’re not made obsolete by new practices or methods before then.

I think this is probably not a big shift from what many architects are doing currently but possibly narrows the focus.

Anything the studio has developed that is not easily replicated is a competitive advantage and should be held onto tightly.

For an architect studio competing for limited work against other studios, this means they must be better that others at both aspects. Better creative and better delivery. Anything the studio has developed that is not easily replicated (ideas, processes, methodology, thinking) is a competitive advantage and should be held onto tightly.