Once in a while a piece of unexpected publicity arrives in my inbox or over social media that tells a story that no one else has considered until that moment. This is the case with fellow architect Duo Dickinson’s recent article, “The Impossibility of Equity.”
I have known Duo for many years, and back in the ‘80s, when I first went into business with Dale Mulfinger, we realized that Duo was someone who thought in the same way we did about our profession.
We realized very early on that the people we wanted as clients—homeowners who simply needed a little help to make their houses into places that really feel like home—wouldn’t be reading the architectural journals, where many architects climb their way to success in our field of expertise. Our clients also weren’t the types to be interested in how avant-garde or trendy our work was. Instead, they wanted houses with familiar characteristics that felt like home to them. So, they would be reading magazines and articles about house design, written specifically for them.
Back then, it was magazines like Home, Better Homes & Gardens, This Old House, and Inspired House (today, think Houzz.com). These resources have always focused first and foremost on speaking to the homeowner directly. And people who love their houses pore through these resources, looking for real inspiration.
So, from the get-go, we aimed to get the word out about our work to the mainstream media, rather than to the architectural press, where most architectural stars are born. We were OK with that. We wanted to make a difference in the lives of the people we served far more than we wanted to be recognized by our colleagues.
This governing instinct has continued throughout my career. It was this motivation that made me want to write a series of books for the general public about how to design a really good house. So, I’ve never thought much about the fact that, as Duo notes in this article, although I may well be one of the best-known architects in the country, getting recognition from the general public is not something that is usually celebrated by the profession of which I am a part.
In a way, what I and many of my architectural colleagues who serve the residential market have created in recent decades is a different genre or subset of our profession—one that works for the greater good, without seeking accolades for what we do. This may sound noble, but I don’t believe that is the driving force behind the now thousands of residential architects doing this kind of work. Our motivation is to make a better place to live, both at an individual and community level.
As Duo notes, “Architecture is both popular trade and rarified fine art.” Those of us who practice in the less visible realm of domesticity and livability have a huge impact on the worlds of those we serve, though we are not as celebrated as our fine art colleagues. And I like to believe that by simply doing good work, and helping to make homes and communities that are both beautiful and functional, we are indeed improving the world we live in, one house at a time.
Note: Though Duo’s article mentions my multiple appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show, there was in fact only one (re-run several times). And though he says I wrote perhaps a dozen more books after The Not So Big House, the total number of Not So Big tomes (so far) is nine.
300-101 400-101 300-320 300-070 300-206 200-310 300-135 300-208 810-403 400-050 640-916 642-997 300-209 400-201 200-355 352-001 642-999 350-080 MB2-712 400-051 C2150-606 1Z0-434 1Z0-146 C2090-919 C9560-655 642-64 100-101 CQE CSSLP 200-125 210-060 210-065 210-260 220-801 220-802 220-901 220-902 2V0-620 2V0-621 2V0-621D 300-075 300-115 AWS-SYSOPS 640-692 640-911 1Z0-144 1z0-434 1Z0-803 1Z0-804 000-089 000-105 70-246 70-270 70-346 70-347 70-410