Architects or Developers?

[ashleyclarke]

Do many of you who are self employed/ Freelance get much visualisation work from architects? I'm fairly new to the game so have been sending out sample work to a selection of local architects, mainly small firms with a 2-10 staff. But the feedback I'm getting is thanks, but we do our visuals in house and we're happy with them.

 

But when they say visuals, what they mean is really basic Sketch Up models. Now, are they just behind the times and need convincing that better renders will help them communicate their ideas better to clients. Or is it me shooting at the wrong target?

 

Having looked at some of the local property development firms though I have found they do use the kind of visuals I produce so seem a much better target for my marketing. I'm just wondering if I've missed something with regards to architectural firms?

[RyderSK]

Different clients need different type of visuals (not in terms of style necessarily), with different purpose,etc. Instead of going around convincing someone it's better to offer what you like/enjoy to do most and have clients find you through being reachable through your portfolio.

 

 

 

\\But regarding the architects, more often then not they're far from clueless as I would wager to say they're much better managers/communicators than average visual artist, so definitely not "behind the times". A high quality visual is not necessary better communication tool in all parts of design process. Highest visual fidelity is necessary for marketing purpose, but if the project doesn't require marketing than of course, neither the visual.

 

Architects/Developers: It's not often such easy distinction as one or another. Architects can be both in role of developer (as sole investor for example) or supplier to developer (as contractor, employee or partner) as opposed to standalone entity.

 

Probably worth not to oversimplify the matter and look for easy answers.

[Scott Schroeder]

Here's the issue we run into when dealing with freelancers at our office. A lot of the rendering needs are on an extremely tight deadline and require, for the most part, the freelancer to work inside the office as a lot of design communication is going to happen. Generally it is much easier to keep this work in-house. Sometimes you get the notice that you have been short listed for a project and you have less than 2 weeks to prepare a full bid package + visuals. Unless we keep freelancers on retainer, your schedule may not line up with our needs and we are back to overworking the existing staff here.

 

Juraj nailed it with the visuals. Marketing/inter-architect/bids/city planning/committees all can use different styles and quality of visuals. More often than not, in the early phase if you show a fully polished rendering, the client might flip out thinking that they have lost any say in the design and the project is done. If you use the more loosey-goosey water color look, they will react a bit more and provide more feedback. It sounds strange, but we hit it quite a bit with some of our larger clients.

[ashleyclarke]

Yes I was thinking that it could well be that they use simple visuals for a reason and that is because it's quick and gives an impression of the design rather than pinning everything down from the off. Which is why I asked if many people get work from architects, because for the level of model they tend to produce they don't really need to hire in a specialist as there will usually be someone in house with the basic skills required.

 

For where I live (quite a rural area with only a couple of larger towns) I think my best bet is going to be targeting developers as quite a few nice, small developments go up and by the marketing stage do seem to use nice visuals.

[NigelStutt]

I would imagine a lot of the time the prompt for a professional render will come from the client. If architects are left to their own devices they will mostly try to keep work in house/as quick and cheap as possible because it worry that it will impact on their own fee if they have to outsource. I have as an architect suggested getting proper renders from someone and the client is usually ameniable to that and will pay for it themselves but I think most architects still do not like spreading work around to others that they can do themselves espeically as some feel they may lose some artistic control by outsourcing, there is an element of pride there.

 

So yeah definitely contractors, house builders and large developers may be the way to go, but it wont hurt arranging quick meetings with local architects to get your foot in the door in case anything crops up. Architects, espeically younger ones, love talking presentation and looking at pretty pictures so most will be amenable to meeting for half an hour at the end of the day if you say you are in the area and have a good portfolio. Some good architects will also see it as a way of gaining a bit of inspiration or as a way of winding down for the day. So definitely meeting in person is the way to go rather than phoning/emailing.

Edited January 6, 2015 by NigelStutt

[RyderSK]

I would imagine a lot of the time the prompt for a professional render will come from the client. If architects are left to their own devices they will mostly try to keep work in house/as quick and cheap as possible because it worry that it will impact on their own fee if they have to outsource. I have as an architect suggested getting proper renders from someone and the client is usually ameniable to that and will pay for it themselves but I think most architects still do not like spreading work around to others that they can do themselves espeically as some feel they may lose some artistic control by outsourcing, there is an element of pride there.

 

 

Holds true :- ). I would like to add about relationship I've been quite often in last year, and I know others around (like Peter Guthrie, or Lasse Rode) are also, which I think is quite beneficial for all parties.

 

Usually developer intends to create a team, under directorship of architects. The architects "hire" (but formally pays the developer directly) necessary people they like for all the branding around ( visualization team like mine, some general art director for brochure and collateral and web team,etc..).

In reality it all plays really well, since the communication is done between visualiser and architects, both feel safe in this, but neither party feels like loosing any budget since that is covered individually by developer. A triangle of sorts.

[harryhirsch]

Hi Ashley, I agree with Nigel and Juraj...

Here in the EU Architects hire Archviz guys for competitions. I worked for several companies. Bigger famous offices join a lot ''invited'' competitions, they have to have very good renderings because the other competitors have them as well. Smaller unknown companies dont need that because they join competitions where renderings are not required or allowed. If the projects are public projects (government) architects from the entire EU or from all WTO states can join the competition. No one would invite small offices because they do not have the required experience to join the competition. Certain laws allow young and small offices to join big competitions. Also some architecture offices do not use renderings because the client/ investor/city does not pay them for using renderings.

I worked for 2 very well known firms and the bosses do not mind to pay for renderings, often they do not even care how the projects is done. They ask the staff to do deal with it, if the staff knows an Archviz guy: fine, if the staff can do it by themself, fine. To make a long story short, I would approach certain companies that use 3D Archviz companies on regular basis. You can find out on webpages like competitionline.com. Some of the architecture offices mention the name of supporting engineer and archviz companies. I would contact these firms then. Meet them on exhibitions, ask the boss to take 10 minutes to introduce yourself etc.

[NigelStutt]

Its worth saying as well that the rise of Revit is creating a bit of an opportunity in the UK at least where architects will create BIM models themselves but will not have the time or skills available to create decent presentation stuff out of that. The point is thre is an intention there to create 3d models themselves, which bosses see as being ultimately presentable, but in fact are not, and not a lot of people have the skills necessary to create a realistic looking render out of BIM stuff. Most BIM output looks terrible. If you go to these architects and show them what you can do to take there models to the 'next stage' for them that could pay off. I know many architects who are starting to use BIM and most will expect a decent output from it. They are only interested/capable of using the models for their design purposes in house though, they cannot create a good high quality renders. So stressing your price for doing up their basic BIM models will perhaps get you work with those architects. It will usually be medium/small firms who are trying to get into BIM though, the larger firms will have in house staff to do it already.

[harryhirsch]

well, BIM is a big term, for a project you are suppoosed (sometimes by law) to work with BIM wich is basicly a file that needs constant info and plenty of architects and engineers work an that thing. Revit has a render engine and is supposed to produce decent/proper renderings as well. (in theory) The marketing people of Revit/Archicad are trained to produce these renderings with two mouseclicks, directors/owners of architecture firms buy the software and tell the stuff to ''do it''. Architects will quickly learn that Revit is not enough to get nice renderings, but then again, architects dont need always a superb highend rendering.

[TommyJ]

In my experience, it's always better to work for a developer.

 

However I would add the caveat that it depends upon the size of the architect.

 

I've provided design services and 3D viz for architects since the early 2000s and I can say that, without exception, the bigger the architect is, the harder they are to deal with.

 

A larger firm will be more likely to over-promise and under-quote in order to get the work (since the kind of contracts that are large enough to sustain bigger practices are few and far between) which means they will usually be over-worked and quite disorganised. As a sub-contractor you will get the information later, with a tighter deadline and more last-minute changes working for a big practice.

 

The guys from MIR have an interesting approach to avoiding this scenario, but they have an unusual amount of power over clients given the standard of their work

[Scott Schroeder]

I wouldn't say MIR has power, I would say that they just do their part in communicating the exact no bs process with the client at the very start of the project. For as much as we bitch about client's not being mind readers, we often expect them to know the process of rendering an image.

 

The clients are not rendering experts, we are. Like Mats mentioned, "We prepare them for this rigidness."

[TommyJ]

problems can arise from the opposite - architects believing they do understand 3D, and could probably do it better than a 3D person, if only they took the time to do it.