Are you a Starchitect or a "little-a architect"?

On Friday, I had an interesting exchange of opinions with a couple of architects on Instagram, in the context of residential architecture.

Residential architecture is a sphere of practice where I think architects have great potential to lead change, because they currently deliver less than 5% of new homes in Australia, but housing accounts for about 20% of greenhouse gas emissions (which need to be reduced by 45% overall by 2030). So it’s a market segment that is ripe for more architectural input.

Photo by Icons8 Team on Unsplash

This particular exchange on Instagram began with an architect calling for a different method to review residential DAs. In the post, the architect called a local real estate agent – who had objected to the proposal – an offensive name.

I said that while I agreed with the underlying sentiment, the architect might gain more support for their argument if they refrained from calling people names.

Disagreeing with me, the architect stated it was their right – as a person who was highly qualified and experienced, compared to the objector – to call people names in defence of a project. Another architect agreed, adding yet more derogatory words to the exchange.

At that point, I bowed out.

As a communications advisor to architects – and an advocate for good design in the broader community – I have a few problems with the stated positions of these two architects. Here’s why.

Articulating your value

Firstly, if you can’t explain the benefit of what you do, the merits of your design, and the reasons why your client should receive approval to go ahead with your proposal – without resorting to calling objectors and council officials derogatory names – you run the risk of perpetuating the public perception that architects are arrogant, superior and out-of-touch. You could easily be pigeonholed as an architect who is overbearing and dogmatic; even offensive and rude. 

What should you do instead?

Temper your language in the public domain. Keep your online communications civil and don’t use words to describe someone that you wouldn’t use in person. Calling people stupid is rarely going to help you win friends or influence people. Also, don’t ascribe the qualities of one detractor to their entire profession… “all real estate agents, all planners…” Don’t stereotype an entire group based on your views about one or more individuals.

Feel free to let off steam and vent to your colleagues in the studio; but save the offensive tirades for behind-closed-doors. (Actually, my preference is to not use those denigrating terms in the first place – we have a “no-name calling rule” at home, because as parents we try and exemplify the behaviour we aim to instil in our kids).

You are your brand

Secondly, your clients and potential clients are watching how you present yourself on social media. They see your posts, and if you insist on calling other professions – real estate agents, planners and others – derogatory names, and this behaviour doesn’t align with the values of your potential clients, you’ll probably lose their attention and interest for good. 

If your online presentation and delivery gives prospective clients little reason to trust and like you – and if it causes them to doubt your knowledge about the best way to achieve their goals – they are unlikely to feel emotionally connected to your brand. 

And now – more than ever before – there are plenty more architects in the sea, so to speak; not to mention all the non-architect competitors like builders and building designers operating in the residential market segment.

What’s the alternative?

Anything you post on social media (or the internet at large) is on display for the whole world to see, so choose your words wisely. Yes, you could always delete offensive posts, but often the damage is done before you take that action. 

So ensure your posts, comments, blogs, newsletters and articles demonstrate that you are respectful of people – and that means everyone, not just the hands that feed your practice – and that you can respond appropriately to any criticism or negative feedback.

Client-patron or client-collaborator?

Which leads to my third point: if a client (or potential client) observes you reacting in the manner stated above to a setback on a project, what’s to stop them from jumping to the conclusion that you don’t listen to opposing viewpoints and feedback, and that you can’t handle criticism? 

Architecture is not a solo enterprise – you’ll likely to interacting with consultants, contractors, sub-contractors, approval authorities, and many others who contribute to the realisation of each project. And most people (read, clients!) dislike confrontation, so an architect who doesn’t handle disagreements well could make a project more difficult than it might otherwise be. 

There is an exception to this rule. If your potential client is seeking a client-as-patron relationship with their architect – in which the architect comes up with a genius idea and is then given carte blanche to realise it – this type of top-down approach may work. 

But not many clients these days want to act as patrons (there is one I can think of in Sydney, but her run of recent art gallery / home / storage facilities may soon be over). 

What’s the solution?

If you are competing for clients-as-collaborators rather than clients-as-patrons, you should portray yourself as a collaborative architect via your communications. 

Explain how, if you hit a roadblock, you would address those concerns, then overcome them, and enable the project to continue. That’s a much more compelling and convincing story for a potential client than the one about an architect who ranted on Instagram and called people names, after council declined approval for their design.

Interestingly, on Saturday, I awoke to news that Ruth Bader Ginsberg had died in the USA, and my social media feeds were full of photos, quotes and memes that celebrated her life and her enormous contribution to the legal profession and gender equality more broadly.

This one seemed particularly pertinent and useful:

“Fight for the things that you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.”

- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking at the Radcliffe Institute at Harvard University

To me, this speaks to the notion that architects face a significant challenge to communicate the value of good design – and the fact that architecture is more than just design – in a way that is compelling and persuasive. 

In order to make inroads into the residential market – and to convince homeowners that they can thrive in well-designed homes, while also tackling climate emergency – architects need to connect and engage with a broader range of people than they currently serve.

Obviously, Starchitects will continue to win big-budget and high-profile projects that perpetuate the myth of architect as lone genius, and the client-as-patron narrative – but I’m more interested in helping the ‘little-a architects” who serve clients-as-collaborators to increase their market share, reach and influence.

So which kind of architect are you? A Starchitect or a “little-a architect”? And does your branding and online persona suggest that you serve clients-as-patrons, or clients-as-collaborators?