> "GrandTradition"> wrote
> > Don't architects have a responsibility to the public
> Hell fuckin no.
> Is *the public* paying the architect, directly?
> No.
> The person paying the bill is whom the architect/designer is
> responsible to.
> Period.
> And *the public* be damned.
> In fact, I will go so far as to say the issue you previously
addressed > is borne in this silliness of public responsibility.
> This is where (presumed) style is favored over substance, and the
mark > of charade.
Don's sort of right. The responsibility is to the client. The only
real responsibility to the public is to make sure the thing doesn't
hurt anyone when it falls down.
You said "For instance, large corporations tend to hire big-name
architects to design new headquarters". I am in development, not
architecture, but most corporations don't build headquarters. Most
headquarters are leased. Corp. don't want to invest long-term credit
or assets in non-productive buildings. Buildings tend to be owned by
commercial development/ownership companies. These people have to
build something to draw in a client but it also has to be able to
serve a large base or potential clients. Plus it helps if it is cheap
to build. You can get money for granite and ammenities. You can't
for structural steel and raceways.
Don't worry. When you're a little more experienced you'll be just as
cynical as we are.
cont'd....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.architecture/browse_thread/thread/da66db48bea03b60/515754cc844a279c?q=architect&rnum=2#515754cc844a279c