Developers love the cachet and cash that a famous architect’s name brings to new construction in New York, but a look at some recent projects shows there’s sometimes a sizable gap between the luster a star performer lends and the labor he or she performs.
A growing number of high-profile developments reflect the increased pace of big-name branding in Manhattan: 165 Charles Street designed by Richard Meier, The Related Companies’ Astor Place tower designed by Gwathmey & Siegel and the Michael Graves-designed 425 Fifth Avenue are some of the latest entrants in a pricey marketing war aimed at wealthy buyers.
But with many architects licensing their names to expensive developments, some may be contributing only design sketches, leaving the rest of the work of building to subordinates. While their names grow valuable as luxury brands, there may be some natural limits to the practice.
Skeptics suggest that using a top name primarily as a branding device, rather than an actual creative force, could dilute both project quality and brand impact. Developers say this is an increasingly important consideration in picking an architect.
“We’re in the process of deciding between two architects for a new project of ours,” said David Wine, vice chairman of Related, one of the first Manhattan developers to leverage the allure of tony architects in the late 1990s. He said the company views its associations with top tier architects as an extension of its own reputation.
“One of the questions we’re asking is, who is actually going to be spending time? Because we don’t want the name without the work,” he said.
For lesser-known developers, the marketing of a famous architect’s name may have little bearing on the designer’s actual role in the process. Much of the work may be done by a nameless, faceless contract architect. Some architects worry that this may discredit the business in the long run. After all, a 50-story building is different from the suit produced by a house of couture whose cloth selection may be relegated to the celebrated designer’s assistant.
“If a jewel is not executed properly, it shows its weaknesses very quickly when it falls out of the setting,” said Richard Hayden, chief executive officer of Swanke Hayden Connell Architects. “But it’s a different kind of responsibility than if the façde starts to crack. The cachet of selling a name may have weaknesses that don’t show up in a short time in our business. It’s more like five, 10 or 15 years.”
Bassie Deitsch, director of marketing at Boymelgreen Developers, which worked with designer Philippe Starck on its condominiums at 15 Broad Street, said having a big-name architect inspires confidence in buyers purchasing apartments before construction is finished.
“A well-known architect or designer adds credibility to a project as well as a level of status, so that the buyer does not have to question the quality and value of their investment,” she said. “This is especially important when you are selling a product that does not exist at the time of sale.”
But while it may be a key to preconstruction sales, the effect on resales is harder to gauge. In other parts of the country, buildings designed by venerable architects such as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Frank Lloyd Wright have been hard to sell, but the jury is still out on how the contributions from the more recent crop of high-profile designers will hold their value.
“It’s a little early to tell, because this is a recent phenomenon,” said Jonathan Miller, president of appraisal firm Miller Samuel. “Just in preliminary sales, we see that they do retain their value. I guess I’d equate it to architects of an earlier era like Rosario Candela, where those architects are still touted when properties are marketed today.”