Whose fault? Architects vs. Clients for 'good architecture.'

Architects call themselves con-artists.

Yet the "customer (client) is always right".

Common situation

1. Client says no, architects agree mindlessly. Project continues, money comes.
2. Client says yes, architects disagree consciously, due to the responsibility of an architect to his profession and attempts to convince client OTHERwise.

For situation 2, it may come out 1 of 2 ways, client is satisfied OR client is dissatisfied and either finds another architect/ the architect quits/ the architect quietly abide in order for project to continue for various reasons.

The major reason is Money. Survival issues.

Hence, problem 1 arises. Once the architect lets go, assuming the architect was well educated and DID have a better suggestion, "Bad architecture" arises. Fingers begin to point. Truly, who is to blame then? The stubborn client or the weak architect?

Architects are called 'consultants' in the construction practice. Aside from designing, we also consult. Thus the 'con-' attached to 'artists'. So, if we are who we are supposed to be, consultants - should we not learn the skill of public speaking, marketing and communications? Or is it up to personal architects to sought for their own definitions and scope of 'responsibility' in order to prevent fingers from pointing? 'I'm not responsible for what the client wants, therefore I do my job as a designer solely'

In reality, "bad architecture" could be the fault of either one and/or both.

In my perspective, I see faults in both parties as long as bad architecture arises. Aside from the endless possibilities of a bad project alone (eg cost, planning, time, management, disasters); For the sake of this situation created, it will be the architect's fault for failing the project as a whole (not just the design stages. but the execution through the process) AND the client being too stubborn to see better solutions in the eye of the architect - after all, an architect is rightfully hired to solve problems to 'bad' architecture.

Solution?

If educated effectively, in a typical world, architects are just simulating machines - brought up as worldbuilders, only with the power of creativity and innovation (the triumphant element against machines, don't know about A.I. =P) Hence, the problem still boils down to the one who wants to a building built - the client. Speculated around the world, good architecture, are commonly seen together within a settlement (despite the fact famous 'and assumingly good' architects run around the world promoting their skills) Thus I believe the problem begins with the people (all being potential clients) and their education level on well-being, ultimately customs. The solution is not matter of what but how, as the understanding of changing a custom is through a lifelong education 40% from the schools and awareness, and 60% from the environment themselves (eg surroundings, parents, friends, media, religion, etc).

EG/ Dubai. Thousands of critiques are hammering on the architecture built in U.A.E due to the absurd points proven. With the set of criteria and the abundance of cash, the filthy rich clients prove one thing - with too much money, power and the lack of understanding for sufficiency, limitations are endless, focus is also dispersed; hence 'bad architecture' arises. Clients are ultimately the ones who initiate the project of a building to begin with- their intentions give the spark for the project - so the problem would start where intentions go 'wrong', leading to a whole set of miscalculations within the equation.

In this scenario, it seems the solution is out of the architects power. However, put in a different situation, even if architects were able to convince every stubborn client - would it save the world then? I believe not. Architects are worldbuilders. We don't just build buildings, we're building a module to fit within the system of world's buildings' system. We literally shape the world we live in. Hence, the final creation of a city, state or country is up to the political leaders - governments - the ones who can make a true widespread and quick difference. As our order goes to them, they have the responsibility to improve our options and ultimately the architecture we create.

Conclusion

So in this case, should we be spending out efforts convincing every client, or pool our energy together to convince that one person who makes the difference for every client? =)

____________________________________________________________________

Ofcourse there are tons of loop holes in this argument but I saw to prove one point only. Through discussions with mates of mine, we understood that, there is no ONE solution to improve the state of living (even in terms of architecture). The International style is an example sought to improve the way of life, thought it rightfully succeeded, the inevitable course of nature continued to cycle - humans ask for more despite the given amenities. Cultural diversity, regionalism, identity, meaning of life.

The more we strive, the faster we speed up the process,

The more we push, the closer we come to our end.