Do architects really prioritize design (aesthetics and function) over cost?
They (not architects) stated that what most architects are after is aesthetics and not the cost implication that arises from insisting on their works being built as designed.
In fact they also claimed that architects are bad builders because they prioritize aesthetics over budget.
You cannot separate architecture from money.
Architectural pieces can’t be birthed without money. No design builds Itself, it requires a certain type of client who is willing to fund it and thus demand value.
Think outside the box because for the greatest part of their professional lives most will be compelled to design within budgets.
Isn’t ignorance of cost dangerous?
This is what we strive to teach students – outside the box thinking.
The design of a building within a budget and without a budget are never the same.
In the case of a budget, the designer is disciplined by budget but the design is still limited. The designer has to work harder and think within confinements.
While in the case of no budget, the designer is free to explore. He doesn’t feel limited and therefore is likely to express interesting ideas easily.
Is introducing financial implication in design an extra burden on students of architecture?
It is when design has been mastered that financial implication can be discussed with students. Which may not be until their masters programme or possibly their professional pupilage.
Is cost consideration in design really a big issue?
That when this is lacking their designs are wastage. They mostly use redundant forms and materials in their projects. This may not be wrong.
However, I still believe that they never allowed themselves to see architectural design in all its dimensions. Thus, may always be limited to thinking within the box or within the budget.
While, students of architecture who neglected financial implication during design think more freely.
Thank you for reading. I look forward to reading your inputs.