There has been some discussion on this web site and others about the cost associated with well designed homes. In my post entitled McPeople I posited that home owners in general are willing to accept inferior design in the name of blandness and resale. A commenter suggested that the cause for this is the marketing ability and budgets of the large tract home builders and that if architects would step to the plate through marketing and practice, people would see that they could build more distinctive homes that better fit their personalities and lifestyle.
I have decided that while there may be something to this idea (architects tend to put themselves above the suburban tract home) this alone will not increase good design in the suburbs. I think that many architects would say that new home owners are just not smart enough or sophisticated enough to recognize quality design and push it off. But I think that attitude only exacerbates the issue. The real problem is actually that the industry is geared toward repetition and is quickly becoming a one trick pony.
We have marketed to, and have received several commissions for smaller (2,500 sq. ft. and less) homes. We have been quick to repeat the mantra that good design doesn’t cost more. That for the same cost you could build a well designed house instead of the standard tract home.
I will not be saying that anymore.
What I should say instead, is that you SHOULD be able to build a well designed house for the same amount as a poorly designed house. The reality is that every time we try to do something unique, albeit simple to build requiring no additional knowledge or ability to construct, the builders get scared and increase their bids. Our portfolio seems to be filling with designs that the clients loved, we enjoyed creating, but that builders couldn’t figure out how to build at a cost comparative to other homes of their same size and complexity.
This will only be solved when builders who have an open mind come to the table and commit to good design, remove their blinders, and become willing to experiment with the rest of us.
Of course, that is not the end all. The other day, I had a headache so I went to my doctor and asked him for a full frontal lobotomy to remove the pain. He was incredulous! Somehow he didn’t think that was a good idea.
Of course the analogy is absurd, but it illustrates the issue I was addressing in McPeople. Many clients don’t respect and trust architectural professional opinions. It takes a bit of a leap of faith that most people are afraid of. Particularly since it usually involves a significant investment and considering most people who have a house built only do it once in their lifetime.
Those who do trust architects are typically people who have used them in the past for something other than their home (office building, retail store, etc.). This gets to the point of the commentator. We market to the wealthy, because the wealthy value what we do.
This reminds me of the venn diagram my first boss drew of 3 overlapping circles. One circle representing the client, another the architect and the last the builder. It is only where all three circles join that a truly great project can be conceived and executed. In the end, the reason our streets are full of McMansions is because it requires a feat that seems about as rare as the planets aligning to achieve something truly great; a willing and visionary client, a good architect and a committed builder. The trifecta!