only when they ignore the invoices.

have you ever had a client call your engineer and start asking them questions? the worst clients are those who are the most untrusting.

WOW -- are you heading into dangerous territory. there's a big difference between "making" a recommendation and "selling" a recommendation.

unlike in medicine and the law, many of the clients served by architects know a good deal about design, or think they do. many also have strong preconceptions or opinions about what they need or want. this doesn't make them either bad people or stupid - only clients.

under those circumstances, many clients are not going to just fall into line simply because you make a recommendation. if you want your ideas to be accepted, you're going to have to work at it a bit - maybe a lot. one of the most useful skills an architect can develop is the art of persuasion -- that's how great architecture gets built -- not through brute force.

I've lost interest in one of my jobs because they have started, without telling me, to work with an interior designer who is helping them select carpet and furniture. Considering this is an area in which my partner excels, I'm feeling very disappointed, and so don't give a damn that one of the recent decisions they made looks like crap.

They do pay their bills, and are very nice people.

I have a client who we are building a recording studio for. He spent $$$ doing all the right things accoustically (floating floor, double wall, etc). When it came to the windows, however, he has decided to do with piece of shit Milgards (we suggested Fleetwoods). Anyways, this is going to be the weak point of the project accoustically. We have told him this, have told him that they are shitty windows, but he doesnt listen.

When he cant use his studio because of the sound transmission through the windows, guess who wont be giving a shit????

Forget about the shitty acoustics from the Milgards - tell him that 20% of the Milgards will leak at some point and most will arrive at the job site in the wrong sizes (despite heavy shop drawing review)...

Check out Starline windows (I think they're Canadian). Their price point is smack in the middle between Milgard and Fleetwood...

[imho]

it's either love or hate with me, but always respect...apathy doesn't normally co-exist with respect...

i do have a bad habit of not bringing up issues with clients, and therefore keeping decisions away from them...but a lot of it has to do with establishing a good amicable relationship with the client, working on your persuasion skills if something is challenged, and most importantly KEEPING YOUR CLIENTS' GOALS AS YOUR GOAL...in mdler's case, i don't think i would mention the window manufacturer...just the window size, finish, style and minimum acceptable accoustics preformance...and if and when i get pissed off with their decisions, i let them know that i am pissed off and why...most clients that dealt with me appreciate that i really give a damn...(usually more than they do)

[/imho]

dml995i

you are correct about the Milgards; they did arrive in the wrong size.




Simples

we did make it clear to our client that Milgards dont perform accoustically like we need. We also made him sign a paper saying that we told him so

mdler...you'd figure a musician would care about maintaining the acoustical envelope...

but regardless, fight apathy...i favor hate over apathy...

apathy toward threads. my next topic...

you guys are nuts to take this cynical attitude about your clients. clients are a rare and special thing. they give us opportunities and pay our bills. they are our patrons. you can never treat them this way and expect to have a productive career.

certainly, some are difficult and don't want to listen. but, in my view, we should look at ourselves in the mirror when that happens. did we take the wrong client? did we fail to listen and understand the client's real needs? did we fail to help the client appreciate what we're trying to do with the project? did we fail to lead the client and the process?

i've been at this for a while and i've come to the unshakable conclusion that a client failure is our failure - successful businesses understand that the client is always right.

babs, perhaps you are better at this than most and perhaps mind reading is a skill you have that many don't. however, on the off chance that the latter is not one of you're aforementioned skill sets, how can you determine which client is telling the truth and which client is a snake oil salesman?

true, perhaps we give clients too much benefit of the doubt, but if we did not try to make lemonade out of a bunch a lemons, i think you'd see more architects jumping off buildings and not less.

now i am inclined to tell people to go screw earlier rather than later, but i have that luxury, i have a full-time job and i don't care about pissing off a shit head client that wants to listen to his mom's Design Star Finalist friend. really i don't. i even like the fact that my family doesn't consult me about design.

as for the mdler's example; he did try to lead the client, and i think many of use try to lead the client, and even try to engage, educate and have the client even think it's their idea - just to have the client take ownership - but at the end of the day it's like the old saying goes, you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make it drink - you can however shoot the fucker and turn it into glue.

[beta]³ - I see your point and don't claim any particular clairvoyance. all I do is listen very carefully, watch body language, observe what they do (vs. say) and make a judgement - it's not always right, but most often is. this is a skill that comes from practice and discipline. for me, if it doesn't feel right, it probably isn't.

my bigger problem with this thread is the whole Howard Roark thing going on. it speaks to an arrogance about what we do that does irreparable injury to our profEssion as a whole. I think that arrogance is neither justified by the facts nor necessary.

babs, i think you're missing the point of this thread. when you go to the doctor or see a surgeon she/he will say you need x procedure, and tells you how they will go about treating you, but do you contradict the professional or counter with a different idea or decide that they will do it a different way? chances are no, but you will or could get a second opinion or you could just listen to the trusted surgeon. so, why is it different when it comes to architects? why does the layman think they know better than me, especially when it comes to the technical components involved in the design profession? if a client said you know what i don't like that column there, and you say well you need that column to support the corner of the home, and the client says no, i don't want that column there, what do you do, listen to the client?

it's like i've said in the past; the more involvement you as the client require - or the more constraints you put on me - the more money it'll cost you.

[beta]³ - your argument is a familiar one - but, we're neither lawyers or doctors - our typical clients don't spend their lives working in a hospital, with their hands inside a body. they don't spend their lives inside a courtroom, arguing arcane details of forensics. naturally, the average person would defer to their doctor or lawyer.

but, they have spent their entire lives living, eating, sleeping, working and loving inside buildings. they have a personal familiarity with the results of our work that gives them a sense of competence, where there may be none at all.

this is a huge difference and, in my view, requires that we adapt our behavior to that reality - but, only if we want to be successful.

however, if you don't want a loyal group of repeat clients who trust you more with each succesive project, then the Howard Roark model should work about as well as any other. freedom means we each get to make that choice, if we wish.

so, you as an architect would have no problem putting a bedroom over an unheated or uninsulated garage, because the client wants it? or lets say put a bedroom with a pass-through into the kitchen, because on a whim, they thought it looked cool? clients come to professionals precisely because we are by our degree and license are professed to have more knowledge than they have. just because they live in a home does not by nature imbue them with any special skills, if that were the case then why did i spend 5 yrs in school and 5 yrs getting licensed? part of my task as an architect is to become aware of the client/patient's lifestyle and guide them to a solution to satisfy their need, but i cannot just give them a big room for a big tv and call it done. if they want that, they don't want an architect, they want a builder.

again, i think we are digressing from the original point of the thread. there is no Roark-ism in mdler's point, this space he refers to is highly specialized, and requires certain things in order to perform in professional manner, if the client chooses to go a different direction, then i have the right to challenge that - i am the one signing the drawings that represent this project - if the client still chooses that direction then the client needs to release me from any liability.

oh, one more thing, i can't buy into this idea we are a service industry. i am not a BK or McD's you can't just have it your way.

p.s.s. i don't really think the Roark comparisons are by their nature a negative connotation, Roark listened to the client and interpreted the clients needs and created a singular vision of that interpretation.

beta those scenarios are in violation of the international residential code.

but beta, you are in a service based industry. Being in one does not mean you are a Micky D's. It does mean you need a client to do what you do, and you do have to listen to and address their concerns. I also listen to my cleints intently as babs in speaking to. Do I give them everything they want? No. Do I push back on their crazy ideas, suggest better solutions, and explain why theirs might be problemmatic? Yes, you bet. Do I win all of the time? Hell no, but I usually do because I have listened to what they want and I am able to deliver that in a way that makes my client feel like they've been heard [because they have] and do it in a way that makes me happy. Projects are collaborative efforts. By that very notion, no one gets everything they want. Why does this work? Trust and respect. This is the foundation of any successful relationship be it personal, intimate, or professional, and just as we should choose our friends and lovers carefully, we should do the same with our clients.

- simples makes an important point above. it's all about the relationship and the quality of the communication.

I've spent a good part of my career client-side. while I acknowledge my background made me a more sophisticated client than, say, the typical homeowner, I still hired architects who brought their own creativity and ideas to the table and were willing to listen to mine. hell, in most cases I knew more about the building type than many of the interns and project architects assigned to my projects.

those who were willing to listen got along fine. those who brought a "know it all" arrogance never worked on one of my projects again.

while I never wanted my architect to be a drafting service and I listened carefully and respectfully to all recommendations made, in the end it was my money at risk and I expected my views to carry some weight. I think most clients bring that expectation to the table. I think most clients also expect their architect to fight for important decisions - using facts and persuasion instead of professional arrogance.

"i can't buy into this idea we are a service industry" - hmmm - interesting perspective. pretty sure you've got that wrong.

my professor was right, i am not cut out to be a practitioner, i should get a masters then a phd, i am clearly not about to serve a whopper with cheese...

[beta]³ - how did you get that from my post? our work definitely is not humdrum or cookie-cutter.

high-end, quality work is, in my view, all about collaboration between the architect and client - it's interactive. unlike academec endeavors, it actually involves working with a living, breathing person who has something at stake in connection with the process.

I personally find the process stimulating and energizing. 1+1 actually can = 3, but it does involve some work and some ability to compromise and be flexible.

quiz, i don't think i completely got that from your post, but your last comment adds to my apathy.

i think many people listen their clients, but aren't hearing, you know like how white people can listen to jimi, but can't hear jimi. listening is a passive act, but hearing requires an active engagement with the speaker.

i don't look at the first thing a client says and produce what they say, i walk away and reflect, then compose a few schemes that touch on their idea in different ways. the one client i did manage to get way back in 2005 - the one that didn't like my fee - loved the ideas i put together, thought that i heard everything they had to say and never thought someone would get to where they wanted to be in the design. in serving architecture first i served the client, although you may see it that in serving the client i served architecture, but then i ask you; what if i sat there at the kitchen table and sketched out a design just based on the conversation as it happened and handed it to them and said go ahead, build it, would that served the client? probably would have or could have, but did i serve architecture, myself, or the profession?

Sometimes it's easy to underestimate a client's willingness to be challenged. Just because a client says "I like brick" doesn't mean he wouldn't like metal panels. On the other hand, I had a client who told me that he fired an architect who refused to change the bathroom tile pattern he had designed. This was obviously meant to be a threat to my firm that we had to toe the line and do exactly what he wanted.

Architecture is not a service industry like BK. It's more like Apple, which designs things its clients want but didn't even know that they wanted.

if it comes to the point of trying to persuade a client that the design is good, the design is not good. good design is evident. that being said, not acknowledging a client's wishes, if not adopting them wholesale, is foolish. i've worked under some very good architects and none of them ever questioned a client's desires; the best design came out of taking those desires and coming up with a design that satisfied both client and architect alike.

Brooklynboy, you said it extremely well. Just because a client knows what he likes doesn't mean he knows everything that's out there--our entire job as a professional is to know more about it than he has to, because he doesn't have the time/resources to devote himself full-time to knowing all the things we know! That is the entire reason you hire a professional. A client may know generally what he likes but he doesn't know everything that exists out there. Your job is to show him what he never dreamed was possible but now wants too. Otherwise he may as well design his own house.

Also, I can't stand it when a client comes to me specifically FOR MY OPINION and then completely chooses the opposite. I had a client recently who was the most obstinate person I've probably ever met. We could not figure out why she even bothered to hire an architect. She would ask me my opinion constantly--probably on 3 or 4 minor decisions (all outside of our scope, mind you, but I would answer anyway) at every weekly site meeting--and on literally EVERY SINGLE QUERY she would later proceed to do the opposite of what I had recommended. I would get email after email, phone call after phone call, interrupting other work I had to do, to ask me some stupid tiny out-of-scope question, and I would think over the problem, examine it, research what I needed to research, and get back to her with an informed opinion... and she would proceed to order the opposite directive. Incredible. I can't even tell you the toll this took on my morale on the project.

fire the client.

It is extremely naive to expect a client to simply fall into line with progressive suggestions. Architects clearly do know more about what’s out there, but it is completely unreasonable to expect clients to “catch up” with your tastes over a few briefings. It makes the client feel like they are diving head first into a river without checking the depth. Remember, no clients = no architects.