Architizer's 14th A+Awards judging is live! Subscribe to our Awards Newsletter for updates on Public Voting and the big winner reveal later this spring.
In architecture school, students have a single ambition: to create “good architecture.” Yet the definition of what “good architecture” actually means is quite elusive, oftentimes straying far away from the wishes of a client. For architects, having a clear concept, spatial richness and materials that push for longevity is the ultimate goal. For clients, having a clear timeline, a cost-conscious design and a “pretty” image of a building as a result, is their definition of success.
So, what happens when these two sides do not align? Who is actually right and what sort of values should ultimately shape “good architecture”?
Stockholm Waterfront by White arkitekter AB, Stockholm, Sweden
Starting with the most obvious metric, financial performance may make or break a design. Especially when working with developers or large-scale projects, success is measured in ROIs and exit values. For architects, this language is borderline illegible. In fact, the term “value engineering” often signifies a condition where innovation and experimentation are viewed as threatening and costly approaches and architects are forced to settle for the “already tested” design. Bespoke materials or custom-made details may be replaced with simplified choices, while spatial layouts may be reduced to minimum standards, creating a very monotonous — albeit predictable — result.
In addition, clients can be divided into two categories: those who prefer to stick with standard typologies and those who are taken over by unique design. Both, however, want to avoid risk as much as possible. For architects, open-ended design is viewed as an opportunity to surpass certain limitations, such as legislation frameworks or unpredictable design challenges, labeling familiar typologies as conservative and bland. Clients, on the other hand, strive for predictability, equating “good architecture” with reliability and being free of complications. Nevertheless, things are rarely so black and white; if architects want to advocate for complex, custom designs, then it is part of their job to prove that such practices are not only manageable but even necessary for delivering long-term value.
Nanjing Museum of Art and Architecture by Steven Holl Architects, Nanjing, China
Leading to, perhaps, the most bizarre paradox of all: the wish for clients to commission high-profile architects to design their projects. Although safety and risk aversion are very tempting values, they pale in comparison to the potential of the marketable image. Especially for cultural or public projects, the name of the architect acts as a branding tool that elevates the whole proposal even before the first shovel hits the ground. That, by extension, means that the design will most likely have weird corners, materials that are hard to find and very complicated logistics. Yet clients are often unfazed by such challenges, simply because a high-profile architectural image can be strategically deployed, communicated and monetized.
So far, “good architecture” has been defined as experimental as well as reliable, cost-conscious as well as bespoke, standardized as well as monetizable. The irony is clear — with so many contradictory asks, how is it possible for architects and clients to converge on a common set of values?
Naturally, the gap lies in communication. Architects are used to describing a project via abstract language, focusing on spatial quality, tactile materials, atmosphere, conceptual rigor and context integration — all terms that carry certain meaning within the discipline but can feel intangible to someone managing budgets and timelines. On the other hand, clients measure success via highly quantifiable metrics: budgets, timelines, risk exposure, etc., while factors such as conceptual rigor remain unquantifiable and undercommunicated, operating quietly on the sidelines.
Winnipeg Skating Shelters by Patkau Architects, Canada
(Un)fortunately, the burden falls on architects to translate design ambition into a language the client will understand, focusing on performance rather than emotion, intellect or aesthetic. This does not mean reducing architecture to numbers but expanding its vocabulary so that “good architecture” becomes legible within a real-world framework. The first step is to redefine the initial question, and shift from “why don’t clients want good architecture” to “whose definition of ‘good’ is actually in play?” Once this shift happens, the apparent conflict seems more like a mismatch of priorities rather than a total failure.
This means repositioning those “ideal” values, learned in architecture school, within the realities of the client.
This means that architectural words need to become more inclusive and less pompous.
This means that instead of adopting a protective stance towards their discipline, architects have to become translators.
Finally, this means accepting that “good architecture” is not something that will be defended in isolation, but rather has to be negotiated, demonstrated and made relevant to the “outside world.”
Architizer's 14th A+Awards judging is live! Subscribe to our Awards Newsletter for updates on Public Voting and the big winner reveal later this spring.
Featured Image: High School Jean Mermoz by TERRENEUVE Architectes, Dakar, Senegal
High School Jean Mermoz 
Stockholm Waterfront 
