It's a common scene..
Every other day, as an architectural office, we're bound to come across a client or two who would like his/her/their needs to be met specifically and according to an image they have in their minds (or a certain message they want to deliver, but miss the imagination factor).. There's no harm in that, so far, because in the end, we ARE there to satisfy those needs (No, not in that way, you perv)..
However, when those "needs" happen to NOT comply efficiently with architectural and spatial standards, or the image is not architecturally doable/thiesable/practical/sustainable/yada/yada, that's where our job begins..
It's our duty, as designers and engineers, to make sure that those standards and rules of thumb adapt and fit perfectly to make those needs factual, more than just fictitious scribbles on a napkin.. and sometimes, it works vice versa as well..
Impressing the client, architecturally, happens in 3 ways:
- Spatial needs and how they're reflected on the plan..
- Cost effectiveness (we rarely come across an open-checkbook client)..
- The "bling" factor (mainly, how the building looks vs. standing out to the surroundings)..
Nothing is wrong with that image.. When a client gives you a requirement, you show him/her/them how it's done and then you show off your imagination and concept behind your work.. Project ends happily ever after, you're commissioned for that "job well-done", and you spend the night out celebrating with your annoyed-by-your-working-hours spouse..
Obviously, that utopian case scenario is NOT what am blogging about..