Practice Management Member Conversations

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Practice Management Member Conversations and Repositioning the Architect .
-------------------------------------------
The other day I got an email from Robert Ivy's office regarding an AIA Survey:  Repostitioning the Institute - not "the Architect" as this discussion forum is named.  Yet both architect and institute are being examined, as Ivey wrote in the latest AIArchitect newsletter: "this effort will let us emerge in 2013 with a clearer perception of who we are as a profession--and as a professional organization".

Here is a breakdown of clients as reported by the AIA Pressroom in their basic presskit:

The Clients

In comparing firm billings, as reported by AIA members, by client types:

• 18% are from business, industrial, or commercial companies
• 24% are from state or local government
• 17% are from developers and construction companies
• 14% are from nonprofit institutions
• 14% are from private individuals
• 8% are from the federal government
• 3% are from other architects, engineers, and design professionals

That gives us 52% of the billings are from private sources, 32% from government sources, and 14% from non-profits.  (I know that's not 100%, but I'm working with what I have...).  I'd like to see some clarifiction on that non-profit category.  I think it's mainly hospitals, religious type clients as schools would fall under one of the government categories.  So if we split the billings into privately funded/publically funded we could say it's a 66%/32% split.

Now we all know that the GSA "is going green", made famous by their conferences and spending excesses - but GSA is only a part of that 8% federal billings.  Are we over emphasizing sustainability and "going green" when it is not such an important issue to our clients?

The April issue of ARCHITECT has a number of articles featuring various buildings - yet I can think of only one, that on the Bank of Missouri branches - that is representative of what an average person or client would experience.  Consider this quote from the article on the Barnes Museum:  "The sheets of limestone, exported from a quarry in the Negev, south of Jerusalem, are attached to a stainless steel building envelope using a clip system, itself a nod to the hanging artwork inside".  Really?  Really?  How the heck is anyone supposed to make that connection?  I used clips to support granite cladding on an office tower in the mid '80's, and like the Barnes, the clips are hidden.

When we reposition the Institute, or the architect, let's position them so that we become more relevant to our clients and their needs.  Let's not dismiss the everyday buildings people use as unworthy of notice in our publications.
-------------------------------------------
Klaus Steinke AIA
Principal
Klaus Steinke Architect
Las Vegas NV
-------------------------------------------

Amen to Mr. Steinke's post!

The AIA in trying (and sometimes succeeding) to inspire its members by the superstars' work often misses the point that he is making.  Often with arrogant deaf ears, elitism - being blinded by the Oligarchy's largesse.

What has changed since when we designed the pyramids and were locked into them when the Pharoah was buried.  I am not just trying to be cheeky here.

I too liked the Missouri Bank projects in this month's Architecture mag, as being more representative and actually "reaching" me.  We must touch the client base as one of them while sharing our unique understanding of our art and particular perceptions of space, form, beauty, sustainable urban design, siting/landscape, structure and MEP integration - all within budget and life safety, etc...

-------------------------------------------
Steven Gottesman AIA
Senior Architect
URS Corporation
Sacramento CA
-------------------------------------------

Bravo, Klaus! Like sensational journalism, the search for the outlandish and bizarre recategorizes what is perceived as the expected, or what is valued by our own.  The resultant effect is the generalization by many who purchase our services that our profession is interested more in perpetuating our own mythical ego than providing a critical, value-added service... and it has marginalized and commoditized much of the profession to the point that many clients are turning to the contractor, not the architect, as the first choice when considering a new building.
-------------------------------------------
Michael Kadow AIA
President / Principal Architect
Somerville, Inc.
Green Bay WI
-------------------------------------------

Could not agree with Mr. Steinke more.  I personally, am so disillusioned by an AIA leadership who seems to be "doubling down" on failed practices and policies that have put the profession into the tailspin that it is in.

Is the profession of architecture a regulatory body or a service profession?  Does the architectural community owe more to society or the environment than it owes to it's clients who pay for it's services?  Are architects so narcissistic that they believe themselves to have superior judgement to that of the clients they serve?

I can only hope that the AIA leadership has the sensibility and courage to actually "reposition" the profession.  It really needs a entire cultural revolution focused on creating a new value proposition that is rooted in quantifiable benefits that can be directly tied to the fees charged to the client.


-------------------------------------------
Alan Burcope MBA, LEED AP
Saint Louis MO
-------------------------------------------