On Thu, 27 Apr 2000, Mary Krugman wrote:

> In a message dated 4/27/2000 9:21:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > I found that the only way to get an
> >  architectural firm to start thinking about the site and its context was to
> >  reject the first proposal outright, and maybe the second.  They would
> >  always come back with better work.
>
> Absolutely!  This has been my experience too. The disdain, however, that some
> architects have for outside input is pretty evident. There is something of
> the artist's temperament at work -- "I am the artist here .... I know what is
> aethetically pleasing and what isn't. But..... if you boobs in the cheap
> seats can't recognize greatness when you see it and MUST ruin my fabulous
> design in order for my client to get his approvals, well ...  fine!"

Oops -- I see I may have created some confusion here.  The word
"commissioner" applies to at least two VERY different periods of my past
professional or political life which involved dealing with architects.

As a county commissioner, in 1983-88, I was part of the elected
legislative body of the county (Ingham County, Michigan).  Depending on
your state, you might think of it as "county legislator" or "member of the
county board of supervisors".  Given my interests, I was chair of the
committee that had jurisdiction over building and renovation projects.

When I spoke of rejecting proposals during my time as county commissioner,
those were architects who were working directly for the county on new or
renovated buildings for the use of the county government.  We were the
CLIENTS, in other words, not the reviewing body.

I retired from office as county commissioner and went to graduate school
at Cornell in preservation planning.  Afterwards, I moved to Ann Arbor,
Michigan.

In 1992-98, in Ann Arbor, I was a member of the (city of) Ann Arbor
Historic District Commission, which reviews changes to buildings in the
city's designated historic districts.  B.P.-er Ilene Tyler was one of my
colleagues (and one of several architects to serve on the AAHDC during my
time there).

The AAHDC deals with many architects doing projects for their clients, but
(within the limits of the Secretary of the Interior standards) we were
expected to be nice to them.  We were the REVIEWERS, not the clients, and
though we had the latitude and the legal backing to do the job, and we did
the job pretty well, we knew that too much negativity could damage the
political support for preservation in Ann Arbor.

In this environment, rejecting a plan outright was done only as an
absolute last resort, never as the simple first step.

Does that make it a bit clearer?

---
Lawrence Kestenbaum, [log in to unmask]
The Political Graveyard, http://politicalgraveyard.com