Alexander Daw for Capital: Between Architecture and Commercial Value
For any follower of the Architectural debate, the conventional narrative suggests that the Architects’ control over the end result of a project is being worn down by the specialisation of roles and the need for commercial efficiency. This is not necessarily a bad thing it is simply a shift in the way the industry sees the role of the design team, if a project is run well, the checks and balances that are put in place through the expansion of roles can only be a good thing.
The ideal of the Architect is to improve lives through the environments we create, . Architects by their nature are generally ethical, but our ability to carry this ideal through is often narrowed by commercial constraints. We are useful to the commercial world only when we succeed in creating a commercial success or when our name or signature style can be used to create value. Thus while the star-architect system is, on the one hand, a production of the architectural world and media, it is heavily bolstered by the needs of commerce.
In my own experience I have found that a successful project is dependent on the process that sits behind it, the passage of getting to the end result being more important than the end result itself. A good Architect like any good leader will have developed over time a critical approach to themselves through the constant need to collaborate and an erosion of the egocentric part of the process. In Architecture this erosion of ego should be especially pronounced, every day we need to listen to other points of view and value them in balance with our own ideas, hopefully leading to a lessening of attachment to our own opinion. Simply put, five brains are better than one if you can learn to listen.
Read more on: