[Porsche-O-Phile]

Well. . . you just have to make them understand that business is business - don't be afraid to charge them and don't let the owners become overly fickle. A lot of architects (myself included) don't care to do a lot of residential work because the owners are horrendously fickle and keep changing their minds on every last little thing. The way around this is to make it VERY clear (and put it in the contract) that "owner-directed design revisions past Point X are considered 'extras' and subject to additional fee at the standard hourly rate" - and don't be afraid to hold them to it! Additionally, a lot of residences require almost the same amount of work as a small-to-mid-sized commercial building, only you typically are going to get far less fee - thus, a lot of architects don't bother - you have to pay the bills, right?

Overall though, balance is good. Right now housing is a HUGE problem - particularly in the LA area and most particularly "affordable" housing for middle class families. I'm personally intrigued by the problem of the death of the middle class home; it seems that government, planning, and design efforts all go to "high-end" residential (better fee) when it's free-market driven or to "affordable" low-income housing when it's part of urban renewal, charitable, or government-assisted projects. Like so many other things in our society, the middle class gets the door slammed in their faces and left out in the cold. Prices for modest, "middle class" single family homes (or even multi-family homes) in the city are upwards of half a million dollars now and most of them are architecturally sterile and usually in some state of disrepair. It's truly sad, but only the super poor or super wealthy get to see the skills of true "architecture" applied to their residences any more. The middle class is left with crap-looking, developer-designed junk that costs an outrageously disproportionate amount of their income. Many middle-class people can't ever afford their own places now and are forced to either flee the city entirely or be stuck in a perpetual "rental rut". $500K+ for a combined household income of $100K or less is not doable after other expenses are considered - it's a real problem facing us today and very few people are doing anything about it!

Anyway, this is one of the areas I'm trying to put a little outside pro-bono work into. I'm considering volunteering at Arcosanti in AZ later this year to examine alternative solutions to the detached home (this was the big Wright-versus-Soleri difference in philosophy). The real answer to the "new" middle class home is probably somewhere in the middle - or a combination of the two. But it had better start getting addressed soon or there won't be a middle class left, at least not in Southern California!

Anyway, enough ranting - to make a long story short, residential design is certainly noble and poses its own set of highly interesting architectural problems that are worthy of pursuit, it is just typically not economically worthwhile to do so as a primary focus of an individual or firm. As a supplement, it's great. As a staple, you'll be on the street with a tin can in your hand bumming people for spare change unless you're EXTREMELY lucky!

Back to the original topic - it's true that a lot of architects like the 911s also. . . I personally think the 911 has one of the most beautiful lines of any car ever made. It's elegant, distinctive, functional, etc. Maybe more architects don't have 911s because they simply can't afford them! A bit tongue-in-cheek, but you see the point. How many "working" architects can really afford a $100K car? I'll eventually own one (I'm shooting for this time next year) but it'll be an older 911SC or early Carerra that can be had for about $20K or so and I can work on myself.