This is a as good a forum for discussion of ethics and prerogatives as any, in my opinion. Insulting comments are out of line, but directness as to issues is not.
There may have been a sea-change in attitudes among commercial clients over the last few years, based perhaps on the theory of "market uber alles". Developers, including speculators, of commercial properties and merchant housing must build to the market, of course, and may from time to time hire architects only because the state code requires it. My clients have, however, generally expected as much design bang for the buck as I can wrest from the budget, and have not meddled much overall, assuming that I knew more about design than they did. They have wanted great "curb appeal" and have believed an architect, in this case, me, the right professional consultant to give it to them. I also know that even some high-end architectural firms will take commissions to keep staff busy, acknowledging that they will not represent their best work - which, while true, begs the question.
With respect to egos, architects need big ones; we leave our failures sitting around on street corners as well as our successes. I confess to losing focus on a couple that I do not consider my best work, even though they sold like hotcakes and kept the client happy. Still, neither I nor my design staff did it on purpose.
The proper context for value engineering includes, a priori, maintaining the overall performance and aesthetic appeal of the project. If either is to be materially compromised to squeeze out a couple more bucks, especially from an already tight budget, both the market and social value of architecture with respect to creating a better built environment may be diminished. In speculative projects, if the client wants to use cheaper door latches than spec, I could usually care less, but will still advise that the better product for the indended use is likely to be the best value engineering choice, first cost priorities nowithstanding. That is the ethical thing to do; inform the client as to realities, let them make a choice, and keep an appropriate paper trail.
However, if the client wishes to change facade window orientation from vertical to horizontal because either cheaper or he thinks it looks better, he will lose me as architect unless he can be convinced otherwise. He may in that event not shed a tear, but neither will I. Certainly an architect who cannot explain his design choices to the client in comprehensible terms is at risk of losing control of design; understood. By the same token, so long as budget, market, and the client's preference for a "style"are agreed to, I will not tolerate a client's attempts to guide my sketching hand, nor should any architect. Ethics is a two-way street.
Beyond the specifics of an architect/client contract, there is a long history of combining art and technology in architecture as a unique discipline, and prerogatives on all sides understood to derive from law, common practice, and tradition. This is the ethical as well as legal landscape, and must be respected through program and design development, or the architect-client relationship and the project will both suffer.
Part of the tradition surrounding architectural practice is, in my view, that the community and environment are our clients as well. They will pay in the long run in some fashion for poor architecture and ill-conceived site planning - no matter who paid for it originally. -------------------------------------------
Gary Collins AIA
Principal
Gary R. Collins, AIA
Jacksonville OR
-------------------------------------------