Does being an architect imply you’re creative?
I had someone remark recently that using the phrase “creative thinking” in my firm description was redundant because being an architect implies creativity.
Is that true?
We’ve all been in and seen our share of uninspired buildings that don’t deserve to be called architecture. A majority of the built environment is comprised of buildings. How can we all be so creative and wind up with the built environment we do? Isn’t there a distinction among architectural firms, those who fall in the more creative side of the spectrum (think Gehry, Hadid) and nuts and bolts production firms?
Doesn’t a market exist for both buildings and architecture?
If so, are there creative and non-creative architects?
Can creativity and creative thinking be quantified and marketed as a service?
Or is being an architect enough?
Robert Vecchione is an architect/designer and principal of the multidisciplinary firm Cobrooke Ideas-Architecture-Design (www.cobrooke.com)