Architect Websites

As an architecture writer, I spend a considerable amount of time looking at local firms’ websites. Some are flashy, some bare bones. But more importantly, some work at conveying the information you want better than others.

I think when a company hires a web designer to create or recreate their website, there can be pressure to consider Flash graphics and slick presentation. But it has been rare that I’ve seen motion graphics that really illustrate something important. Too often it seems to be just the glossy wrapping paper that you have to tear away to get to the information you want.

Another common feature is for firms to open with some kind of poetic statement about architecture, that it’s “a synthesis of passion and ideas” or that the firm listens intently to its clients and makes their dreams a reality. It’s usually pretty trite.

Yet there are also certain features that I find exceptionally helpful that would be very simple to employ on a firm’s website and hardly ever are there. For example, if I log onto a site, chances are it’s because I generally want to learn more about that firm. The site pretty much always has a portfolio of projects to choose from, but almost never a separate classification for work that is in progress. It’d be nice to easily differentiate between a building completed in 1989 and one due out this fall.

Ultimately websites are similar to buildings. Although they’re virtual in this case, websites consist of a series of screens that act as “rooms”. Their order and what they provide should first be simple and comprehensive.

Off the top of my head, there are a select few websites I like: BOORA, SERA, Yost Grube Hall, Thomas Hacker. But even these I would change certain things about if I could. Who are some of your favorites and why?

Comments

[cab]

http://www.emmonsarchitects.com/

Emmons site is nice. The sketch book is interesting.

[Mike Thelin]

I like gbdarchitects.com The site works well, but they could do a better job keeping it updated. Ankrom Moisan has by far the worst web site not only in Portland, but perhaps in the history of architecture. They do more work than any firm in town, and they haven't made an update to their site in two years. Plus, their portfolio renderings link to pdf files so large your computer will often crash. amaa.com

I don't care for the Allied Works site. It's visually appealing, but far too difficult to navigate and not user friendly. Much like Allied's firestation design-- the web site is more about form than function. alliedworks.com

[bend]

I like the allied works site. Although it did take a while to figure out how to navigate the site the depth of which you can explore each project beats almost any other site. although they don't have much content other than those five or so projects.

[Michel Weenick]

C'mon Brian,
Websites are our only chance to be trite since we don't have to look anyone in the eyes when we write the stuff or risk breaking out into uncontrolable laughter in front of potential clients.

Seriously though - its hard to find a mission statement, corporate or otherwise, that isn't a bit trite - don't just single out us architects!

Cheers,
Michel

[Damien Newman]

I'm not an architect, but as a designer (with a strong interest in Architecture) I spend a considerable amount of time looking at/for well designed websites. Here are some I've found interesting for different reasons.

SO-AD [www.so-ad.com]: As strong flash designers, they've developed a well built site, and keep the front page updated with large images from new projects. Their work for Aurburn University was interesting.

Lightroom [www.lightroom.tv]: Like SO-AD, Lightroom balances a mixture of work in interaction design and architecture, so you get a well presented online image that isn't constrained by an inability to design for the medium.

BKD [www.benkellydesign.com]: I enjoy the stark difference in design compared to almost all of the flash-driven firm web sites.

AWA : (inspite of Mike's opinion) I felt this was an interesting flash-driven site, which was a departure from the fixed sized (usually sort of letterbox centered in the page) tiny web sites you find.

ALSOP [www.alsoparchitects.com]: Although this fits the aforementioned tiny letterboxed approach, I like the personality and felt it was simple and informative.

Jerde [www.jerde.com]: Flash, but interesting navigation and enjoyed the use of the browser window.

David Baker [www.dbarchitect.com]: I used to liked this site because of the personality that came through the design and the style and design - but in the last five years have wondered why they haven't improved it at all.

Make [www.makearchitects.com]: I was at first interested to see how Make would develop their online presence, but find their site uncomfortably restricted in it's visual design and somewhat unrefined/poor in usability.

I think overall, architects tend to have the poorest online presence for one reason or another.