Re: ARCHITECTURE & FEES

before we reopen the old complaint that architects are not paid enough,
maybe we should establish some notion of what an architect actually does
(i.e., what are the delimits of the basis for compenstation?).  It is
ironic that architects we some of the earliest pruveyors of the information
age, being by defintion a industry that produces almost nothing.  The
documents which are exchanged for fees to clients frequently carry the
disclaimers 'not for construction' or are considered guidelines that will
provide a point of departure for the contractor, who has the only legally
enforcable agreement to make something (and usually the most extraordinary
liability).  The most successful firms today (financially) work hardest to
limit the liability and responsibilty inherent in their documents, and
therefore find the most routes to defining their services out of existence.
Those who carefully protect their documents to ensure that the resultant
structure conforms closely to their intent are generally called 'boutique'
firms who charge fees normally 2 to 2.5 times that of the industry at
large, which is the only way to financially allow rigorous documents and
extensive liability coverage (through bonding, insurance, outsourcing to
subconsultants, and the final backup of expensive legal support in the face
of contracts gone awry) -I append the 'rumor' of  former employer of the
newly downsized firm of R.M. that he only accepts residential commissions
with construction costs in excess of US $8000000 as testimony of the
economic requirements of the 'boutique' firm (of course, let us not forget
that principals in these firms expect six to seven figure salaries,
negating the old canard that archy's do so poor compared to other
'professionals.'  Now John Massengale will weigh in with how little he
makes and that low salaries for entry level and even mid level employee's
is not simply to underwrite fat bottom lines).

The problem is, the botique firms and academic chokehold (notice the
overlap between the puveryors, RAMS @ Columbia, MG @ Princeton, etc.) over
what is good or proper architecture effective denies other firms the
opportunity to claim some cultural value for their work- which is eminently
necessary if this profession will exist at all beyond the aforementioned
mutltimillion dollar homes or acting as set dressers for speculative
devlopment skyscrapers and entertainment architecture.  The notion of
architect as singular genius is culturally bankrupt and critically
skeptical.  It is time to recongnize what complicitly archtiects share in
real estate development, and what roles can be staked out in an ever
narrowing public bulding sector.

If we cling hopelessly to this idea that clever drawings will shape the
world _and_ are worth $125/hr to anyone besides ourselves, then we do
deserve to fall of the face of culture landscape.  As always we are in the
thrall of nice sketches and models, which have little to do with the actual
creation of buildings and space (what about a practice that is expressed
only in CD's and alternative forms of communication with the client-
narrative, conceptual or by example, provided it is recognized that some
degree of comptence, even specialized knowledge accompanies the production
of the documents, not mere styling based on some egotistical jerk-off?).

so how about then; what is it we do?

nic musolino
subject@xxxxxxxx
10019