Starting from a personal perspective, I must also confess that I did not have a very high regard for interior design when I originally started out as an architect. It therefore made it even more ironic that I ended up making a career as one. Whilst I still remain very fascinated by, perhaps even in love with, architecture, I started developing a gradual love affair for the many nuances and layers around retail design some time back. I also developed a gradual awakening around the actual relatives of architecture's economic engine.
The 101 of business tells you that high risk should equal high reward, but unfortunately in most cases architecture seems diametrically opposed to this notion. To add insult to injury, even moderately successful interior designers in private practice seem to make more money than highly skilled and able architects.
When my partners and I in Design Partnership decided to shift our core focus from architecture to interior design some time back, we bore the brunt of many jokes from our other architect friends. Whilst most remarks were like water of a duck's back, the one that touched a nerve was the terminology of "inferior designer". Although it may have just been some friendly banter at the time, the reality was that architects, by and large, tended to view interior designers as people who came in after the "real" work was done. Although this mindset has changed dramatically over the years, there is still a strong notion that interior designers don't create space, they decorate it, and, as such, traditional architects perhaps do not place enough value on the scope of work that interior designers do.
This has been an ongoing battle of perceptions and in an attempt to gain credibility some institutions, and even indeed some designers, have opted for the more fashionable sound bite of "interior architect". Blêh! - a rose by any other name ...
In my view, architecture suffers from .... well, unfortunately, architects! Have we perhaps allowed ourselves to be bullied into this corner or has the world perhaps moved on too quickly? Whilst business, technology and process has changed at a rate that none of us can in reality keep up with, architects seem to have clung to their ways and the profession has remained virtually unchanged. Sure, we have swapped drawing boards for CAD and REVIT, but what else? How has the profession reinvented itself?
The short answer is that it hasn't. Perhaps, however, the biggest contributing factor for the chasm between the commercial viability of the two professions could be directly attributed to (or blamed on) property developers. In the mid-1900s, the idea of the speculative building and a shift from corporate ownership to leasing began to separate the design of the building from the design of its interior, thus giving birth to the interior designer profession. Whilst there may have been some courtship and even matrimony in the very beginning, the two professions soon found themselves on opposing ends in a messy divorce court, as this speculative angle gained increased momentum leading to massive growth in the category of big property development.
In my view, architects were lured by a new mistress in the form of these property developers and jumped into bed, which ultimately led to the conception and eventual birth of a red-headed offspring called "risk work". This is, perhaps, singularly one of the biggest contributing factors to the financial state that architecture finds itself in today.
I am generalising, of course, and I certainly do not propose that either architecture or interior design is better as a profession or as individuals. Just like with all things, there are some good architects and interior designers and some not so good ones, and certainly also some very bad ones. Having said this, I also believe that in the same way that producing a child does not make a parent, obtaining a certain degree does not make an architect or interior designer. In my view, that label should be the reward for quality work produced.
To this end there are many talented interior designers out there who do not have any licence, qualification or professional degree, and they are doing wonderful work. Architects, conversely, do not have this "free" pass as their scope of work demands them to understand issues of health and safety. Apart from ensuring that their product meets the client's aesthetic and budget requirements, it also needs to meet a slew of other legal and safety qualifications. This liability and high risk associated with being an architect is a further debilitating factor and is, unfortunately, sadly missed by most clients. It is certainly hardly ever rewarded.
Speaking of reward, whilst I have this platform it would be remiss of me not to speak out on the known, but unspoken, practice of "kickbacks" that designers are rewarded, by suppliers, for specifying their products. This has become rife in the field of interior design. When undisclosed profits are made on the back of purchasing products "on behalf of" the client, and when none of these aggregated profits benefit the clients in any way, these profits are certainly nothing more than kickbacks. As an architect, one is explicitly forbidden from this practice by the SAIA (South African Institute of Architects) code of ethics. The SAIID (the South African Institute of the Interior Design) profession does not take a position on this specifically, but it is certainly implied.
Before going off on another tangent, let's conclude this discussion. It is clear that the position, approach and view on this subject is still quite fragmented. It is also ironic and perhaps quite sad that the very profession that gave interior design its right to exist, its place and meaning in the world viz. architecture, now seems to be struggling to enjoy the same commercial benefits and opportunities that it's younger sibling does. In my view this will never recover.
Traditional architecture, and soon for that matter also interior design, is under tremendous threat from an even younger emerging sibling not yet clearly defined. Tomorrow will be in the hands of a new breed of designer, less concerned with title of classification - a breed of designer that has noticed the opportunities, in a world that has irrevocably changed overnight - a world of austerity and single-digit growth that has bred a business environment that is now increasingly seeking more than just design.
What is now needed is an integrated approach with more effective and more considered design solutions. The business environment needs designers to solve business problems with design solutions, as opposed to merely design problems with design solutions. Business clients are now demanding that designers fundamentally understand their core business. Only when this is accomplished can good design make good business sense.
In my view, it's therefore no longer a debate around architects versus interior designers - that train just left the station. It's a debate around a new breed of designer that can now add the kind of value that business demands. This is a designer that, in addition to having a thorough understanding of design in all its facets, also has a firm grasp of all the economic and commercial imperatives that underpin and justifies the very existence of design.
