Kraaijvanger

Since April Dirk Jan Postel is one of the regular bloggers on the site ofThe Architect Every month a new piece of his hand appears on various subjects. In his first blog he writes about the relationship between architects and their clients: "There are many parties involved in designing and building a building, especially now that we are working on DBFMOs, for example, e discover how complex the facility side of a building is, but I am particularly fascinated by the alliance - or lack thereof - between the two parties.

What it all started for: the client and the architect, and then the client as a user, a client as an intermediary means a step back in. One of my questions is why it often goes wrong between the two. I remember a statement by a conservator from Center Pompidou who shocked me: "Renzo Piano once had to know how he is hated by the people who have to work in his building". Usually the complaints are familiar and fairly banal, but no less important: no opening windows, impractical design, poor logistics, uncomfortable climate, no account taken of this-or-that. In short: "how could the architect think this, without taking into account us". Known are the controversies between Frank Lloyd Wright and his clients: "It is leaking on the dining table".Wright's answer: "Then you put your chair aside a little?" Or with Peter Eisenman, who with his 'deep structure' transformations of a cube placed a column in the middle of the bedroom. Which the client asked him where his bed should stand. "Sir, that is your problem". Architects may or may not rightly encounter a range of accusations ranging from 'not practical' to 'the architect builds for himself, while it is my building'. The client has the feeling that he has been condemned to an environment he did not want.

Known are the controversies between Frank Lloyd Wright and his clients: "It is leaking on the dining table". Wright's answer: "Then you put your chair aside a little?" Or with Peter Eisenman, who with his 'deep structure' transformations of a cube placed a column in the middle of the bedroom. Which the client asked him where his bed should stand. "Sir, that is yóur problem". Architects may or may not rightly encounter a range of accusations ranging from 'not practical' to 'the architect builds for himself, while it is my building'. The client has the feeling that he has been condemned to an environment he did not want.
At the same time, the architect expects more than satisfactorily filling in the wishes of the client. Something with creativity, something with fantasy, sometimes even spectacle. Of course, the hope is a thorough, substantive dialogue, where you can - willingly - exceed each other's boundaries. I myself never really understood those controversies. One of our clients, Peter Lansbergen from Den Bosch, saw it well: Although the interests of the client and the architect are not exactly the same, they are the most common of all parties involved. A little mutual respect does the rest.
Almost every important project runs on a slippery path of political instability, conflict with authorities and interest groups, threatening cost overruns and technical problems. You really need each other. The client-architect relationship should therefore also exist as a (temporary) marriage, based on mutual trust. Without reservation and power. That way you come out of the building process as friends. Because we both want to eat grass, if the project comes out best. "