| I've had that experience on multiple occasions. Initially, when younger, I did attribute it to myopism. Today, I recognize that credibility also needs to be earned. All architects are unhappy except those who manage to find the right client. The client-architect relationship is fundamental. A successful architectural undertaking is minimally a two variable equation. Client (aka stakeholders) are hugely important. (this is related imo to your post: https://brooker.co.za/blog/2020/10/19/big-changes.html - ) On a related tangent, I've been re-reading "The Open Hand - Essays on Le Corbusier". Specifically, the "Le Corbusier at Pessac - Professional and Client Responsibilities" essay by Brian Brace Taylor. https://www.worldcat.org/title/open-hand-essays-on-le-corbus... Pessac: https://www.archdaily.com/940878/le-corbusiers-cite-fruges-l... That project basically failed its intended purpose. The client, M. Frugès, was apparently an enlightened capitalist, willing to invest in the vision of the young architect, even when incurring financial losses, because of Pessac. Corbu also learned, on the job, how to, and how not to, build his modernist vision. The whole thing was a fiasco on many levels. But it was a necessary project for progress in the field. Which is the point: architectural innovation is costly and even great architects leave a trail of failed early projects. Yes, Corbu went on to master his field, and he did deliver (opinions of course vary) on the program of modern, afforadable, mass housing for the urban working class: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit%C3%A9_d%27habitation But then: "You know, it is life that is right and the architect who is wrong." - Le Corbusier (!) https://libquotes.com/le-corbusier/quote/lbz6x3v It's a problematic vocation (bricks or bytes). Love it or leave it. |