It reminds me of some of todays' architects who are likely to absorb the visual works as part of their architectural service. They try to put such added value to their services. But in reality it will only increase the architects' work load and cost while reducing the profit itself. The firms would eventually need to hire architects that could do "expert" 3d visual with very demanding salary and not to mention the needs to purchase the expensive 3d software and powerful computer processors to support the "experts". Instead of spending more time resolving architectural issues, architects now would have to spend more time preparing and revising advertising material (3d visual, coloured plan, animations) to feed the hungry developers' demands.
This is such an insult to architects. What should architects do to educate the client about the cost for those added value works? These high end artworks fees should be added on top of architects standard fees. Or, should it just be outsourced to the real experts for their advertising needs?
The architects only need basic visual to convey their ideas and to visualise the client's dreams. Basic 3d software (free-ware) is now frequently used to replace old days' sketches and drafting works for more productive process.
I keep this project as an example of the proper way the architects feeds the clients need on their hunger for a high-end visuals; a win-win situation for both architects and client.
site photo
super-imposed 1
site photo
super-imposed 2
revised colour versions.http://www.rgp.uk.com/
RGP have an innovative approach to architectural design. We have no dogma, no standard answers and we are spirited and fun to work with
No comments:
Post a Comment