Architect, the title in our cultural psyche has such a lofty, glamorous, concrete authority. It has been appropriated in modern endeavors from computer hardware engineering to writing governmental laws. When it is used, it implies that the person oversees the production and the vision of that endeavor. Though the co-opting of the title "architect" causes irritation to those of us who lawfully bear the title, it helps to underscore the esteem society has for the title. I'm not one to claim that we are or should be some sort of intellectual, artistic godhead as the myths of modern architecture might lead one to believe. But, twenty five years in this business has revealed a great deal of how our role is constantly being whittled at by allied professionals. To a large degree, this has taken place through a number of vehicles, including ourselves. So, I am writing this as a reminder to myself and other architects, while hoping to clarify what we do and why we are valued to others.
The process of construction begins and ends with the client. It starts when the client has a need to build some form of building: garage, home, retail space, office building, church, etc. Though simple as it sounds and TV whitewashes, this process is complex. It involves a large number of professionals and craftsmen to execute. To maintain the overall direction, a single point of cohesive oversight is required, the architect of that project. The central role of complex endeavors outside of the construction industry has been the given the title of "architect" to underscore the lead role which gives and maintains the vision of that endeavor through its completion. From drafting legislation in Congress to integrating hardware and software solutions in the computer industry, the term is used repeatedly without deference to its origin and unique field of expertise. This co-opting of our title, generally conveys a sense of admiration and esteem for what our profession does. However, I would admonish those who misuse it, that it causes a great deal of confusion and dilution of meaning when "architect"is used so haphazardly, as it would if you used the term doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.... It sounds just as superfluously ridiculous to say Hardware Doctor as it does Hardware Architect.
This lead role is not simply one of managing budgets, timelines, and sequences, but one that encompasses developing and maintaining the initial vision and desired end results - a projects cohesiveness. Its not strictly calendar dates and dollar amounts. Though extremely useful and indispensable, a project manager, in a lead position, can result in compromised results and diminished goals, while successfully maintaining both timelines and budgets. If the overriding goal is budget and timeline, and the cohesive end result and vision is not critical, then a project manager (also known as a Construction Manager) as the lead entity is the correct choice. However, this requires an adjustment to the expectation of the final goal. Now, obviously I'm not advocating throwing budgets and timelines out the door or downplaying their role in the process. Both are absolutely critical, not only because money does not grow on trees, but time and budget keeps project completion the goal while fueling creativity. An architect can help a client understand the tradeoffs of adjusting a timeline milestone or budget when doing so is necessary to achieve the overall goals. In making such adjustments, it is necessary that we as architects understand what tradeoffs need to be made elsewhere to keep the budgets and timelines intact if possible. This has often been an historic source of client frustration and has led to the rise of Project/Construction Managers as a profession. But, as the single point of "overseer of the work", architects are in a unique position to understand the adjustments to maintain the overall cohesiveness of the end results.
Now for a little eye candy to keep this from being excessively dry. Before and After photos of a project I've designed.
 |
| Before |
 |
| After |
