In order to prepare myself for producing something related to architects and their clients, I reread John Baird's and Devereux Bowly's articles in the December '83 PERSPECTIVES to churn myself up a little. I shall try to deliver a number of comments on different types of clients and the relations, good and bad, between them and an architect. I shall discuss this interface as it has been part of my own experience with public housing authorities, with municipal authorities, with institutions, with federal agencies, with a residence, with a corporation and with a developer.

Interface with Public Housing Authorities
I had two experiences-one as a young design architect on Stateway Gardens, another years later as Design Associate on Patrick Sullivan housing for the elderly at Madison and Paulina-working for public agencies. An architect, however gifted or experienced, always works against a large mass of inertia and "traditional wisdom."

First of all, we couldn't alter the height of building. Second, public wisdom decreed that two elevators could service 22 floors. Third, we couldn't vary the window at all everyone had to use a 4'x 4' sliding sash window willy nilly.

At the first meeting of the Stateway Gardens Committee, we were presented with another architect's latest project plans for Cabrini Green. The C.H.A. would have been just as pleased if we had copied these and gone ahead speedily. So much for stimulating architectural ingenuity.

We fought many battles and won a few. For example, because I had four small children and knew the problems of a mother looking after children and trying to keep house, we got rid of basement laundry and drying rooms. We established laundry rooms on each floor with automatic machines.

At that time, everyone thought the outside corridor entrance from the elevator lobby to each apartment was "groovy." We convinced the Authority that each apartment (seven to a floor) should have its own outside space and be private-and it was so designed. It was small-8'x 10' or so, but it was "their own:' We also told the Authority that we would have no part of the project unless the floors had resilient tile and the corridors had glazed tile-but this was in the days before McNulty Brothers had used the thin coat plaster on concrete block and anything was an improvement over the "jail" character of exposed gray bleak concrete block. Finally, we tilted the buildings on the side to try to orient most of the apartments towards view and breeze, and opened up part of the ground floor as a breezeway. We also curved the required fire lanes to try to humanize the outdoor areas. These may not seem to be major victories but at the time- 1954-they were giant steps and each step was a haggle.

Years later, when we were designing elderly housing, we had a more responsive client. This was during the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations. Federal Housing was giving design awards for its projects there was genuine concern for how people might live and grow.

We plastered the concrete walls, carpeted the corridors, put electric outlets and phone jacks at convenient heights for older people, developed craft studios on the ground floor, sun decks and social centers on the roof, and instead of two identical buildings, we proved that one building with two wings off a large elevator lobby would actually look better, be more cost-effective, and work better.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the public authority client was conservative, cost conscious, not very imaginative and not much interested in innovation because then they as the client would have to think, and to weigh, to make new decisions-much easier to rely on the past!

Interface with Municipal Authorities
For a period, the Public Building Commission of Chicago was the client for a series of school buildings. Jacques Brownston-the distinguished designer at Murphy of the Daley Center-was in command. At the commencement of a job, we were presented with ten (I think) massive volumes of requirements. We were told the sheet size, the lettering style, the structural bay size, the exterior elevation grid, the possible materials, specifications, etc. There were a number of buildings completed during this totalitarian regime and while they are probably useful and well-built, there was very little for the architect to contribute.

One of our really hopeless jobs was with a suburban municipality. First of all the client body-the City Councilors or whatever-came to all review meetings. Every few months these councilors changed and every councilor wanted to leave an imprint on our work. We were always suspected of enriching ourselves on the village's funds, but were expected to send five professionals for meetings of five or six hours once a month-all to be included in our fee. We were often put in position of the bad guys-the out-of-town big city slickers who were trying to change the quality of life in the municipality. Finally, when we did get a set of documents together, it turned out that the municipality didn't have anywhere near the funds that they thought they had set aside for the budget. We lost our shirt financially, and lost our taste for trying to give proper, experienced, professional advice to an elected group who didn' t deserve first class services, or want them for that matter. We became a drafting service and this is not a very gratifying role for a professional consultant. An architect reponds to a client who seeks his best work.

Interface with Institutions
Sometimes the "client" is actually a group which has not reached a consensus. There may be important trustees who in the past have headed corporations which have built many buildings and who thus know what they happen to like. These can be important donors who are in a position to choose the form that their money takes. A college faculty may have strong ideas about form and function, while the administration also has strong feelings, as well as their own institutional architect-clients who have special requirements. In such a case, the architect must relate to a whole series of different attitudes and reactions.

Right after the depression, our office was awarded the huge commission for Northwestern Technological Institute, but the Trustees and Donor decreed that it be done in a Collegiate Gothic Style. It was so designed and built and this led to several additional buildings on the campus in related style. However, we were eventually dismissed by a reform group of Trustees because we were too "old hat:' "Sic semper tyrannis."

Interface on Residence
We are working on a new house for a very nice, intelligent family. We have developed a plan that seems to suit the family lifestyle and a character for elevations and materials but there is no continuity. We make changes, improve plans, send them out, and for two or three weeks-not a word. Then a response-changes, hopefully improvements and new sketches. And then again silence for three weeks.

The Client-Architect relationship is essentially a dialogue with mutual respect. If it becomes monologues back and forth at intervals, it ceases to be a bonding relationship.

Interface with a Federal Agency
The Feds have their own system for review. We worked for one agency. They set review dates-we sent plans in advance-we sent six people to a review meeting. The Fed representatives hadn't even looked at the plans. Finally, two weeks later, we received notes. During these two weeks, we had to find other things for our staff to work on, and so it went throughout the job. The work moved by fits and starts. Good corporate clients, on the other hand, often send good technical persons to review our work while we are working and so that they are continuously aware of the progress and can help-question-comment without delaying the program and momentum of a job. This establishes a relationship of trust and communication.

Interface with a Corporation
We once worked for a two-sided corporation (manufacturing and research). The representatives of both came to design review meetings. The manufacturer's reps traveled coach class and wanted working lunch sessions with sandwiches brought in. The research people flew first class and wanted long restaurant/ cocktail lunches. What does the architect do with these two? Manufacturing wanted something that looked cheap. Research wanted something that looked splendid and would win architectural awards. Eventually the CEO had to arbitrate between these factions. We tried to be nice to everyone.

Interface with Development
The Developer is often interested in a striking building which will be easy to rent. On the other hand, he knows exactly how much he intends to spend. Sometimes the two are incompatible.

Nowadays, the architect sits in meetings with several developers and representatives, the developers' selected engineer consultants, a landscape consultant, a traffic consultant, and often the financial power behind the developer. The architect must tread a narrow path to satisfy this complex clientele and to end up with a handsome building.

When I was in sixth grade we were given a homework assignment to write an advertisement for our father's business. My father said "Good Buildings Cheap." That has been our motto ever since although not spoken aloud!