One building says to another building:

Why do we do such crappy buildings?

Most of the buildings we design are condominiums. It’s not a romantic job but someone has to do it. One question we often ask ourselves is, “why can’t we make nicer buildings”. The easy blame gets spread between the head designer and the owner but this doesn’t really tell the entire story.

First it’s important to clarify; I don’t think any of us feels particularly guilty about our work. We aren’t killing kittens or doing anything as unseemly as that. We are making a minor contribution to the world: people need a place to live. We are fulfilling a need. It’s not great that they seem to love living in little cubicles in the sky but what can we do about that? Also, our buildings don’t completely suck. They have a little detail, are typically not un-pleasant to walk by and they sure as hell aren't the worse things on the street.
One of the problems is that work is somewhat mundane. How many cubicles in the sky can you really design while keeping it interesting? Some architects get more excited if those cubicles in the sky are glass and steel instead of brick and wood but I am not sure there is that great a distinction between the two. Others are excited if you just change the shape of the cubicle – boy, if only that apartment were round or obtuse – now that would be more fun to design. Please…

I am not sure that the product is the problem. Part of the problem with designing these things is that we are only concerned with what sells. Granite counters, body sprays and rain cans, that perfect “sweet spot” of square footage. Oh, and it has to have a little outdoor space – even if that space is a 25 square foot checker-plate deck facing an garbage-filled alley, it has to have it. These are all that really matters in the condo world. And why is this so? It is easiest to blame the lemmings that seem to be lining the streets to buy this stuff. Or is it the developers who believe that this is all people want so this is what they are going to serve them. Perhaps it’s a combination of the two.
Another line of thought is that architects are to blame for this entire dilemma. Since we are the harbingers of architectural culture, it is our job to educate the public about quality space and design. If this were the case, wouldn’t we have spent more time learning how to teach and communicate then how to draw and design?

Ultimately, cheaper and bigger end up being the goal and in order to make the client happy (so we can get paid and commissioned to designed more “bigger and cheaper” cubicles) we do whatever it takes. Cheaper and bigger is what the client wants and it is what the client sells to the consumers – which is, in this city, most of us. What a screwed up circle.

One of the ladies formerly in our office informed us that Oprah had a show on “living small” (as if this would eventually change the world). The show featured one guy that lives in 94 square feet of space. This guy is obviously not married and he certainly doesn’t rake in the kind of dough that Oprah does. Does Nate Berkus live in 94 sq feet? Shit, I don’t think Oprah can confine herself to 9400 square feet (and I am not making a crack about her body here)!
Who knows, maybe Oprah is the answer. Perhaps she can begin to assist architects in the education of the general public about quality space through her show!!! Then again, I am not sure I could stomach a talk show filled with architects. HGTV and the DIY network are bad enough. Perhaps if we can convince Oprah what quality design is and that quantity is not everything, I am sure we are well on our way to not designing crappy buildings anymore.