RVLTR x Office D. Sharp - How to Website

It’s time for another installment of my conversations with my pal Dave Sharp. This time, we talk about the dos and donts of websites for architects and then quickly move on to a debate about the state of the industry and an analogy to Toyotas and Ferraris.

Check it out here.

Transcript:

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

Hello everyone, my name is Arnaud. I'm from Revelateur Studio and we have Dave Sharp of Office D. SHARP with us today. We occasionally catch up to talk about all things marketing and communications in the realm of architecture. Tonight we're going to talk about websites. Dave, is there anything you want to add to that?

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

No, that's a good intro, Arno. Thank you. Talking about websites, man, you picked websites as the topic for today. What was your thinking? Why websites for architects? Could something we talk about a lot, but why were you curious to discuss this one?

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

Because it's been years that I've spent an unhealthy amount of time looking at architect's websites and-

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Obsessing over websites.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

... I still go crazy to see how bad some of them are. And I guess the way you could summarize it is that the ratio of bad websites to good websites is grossly lopsided. There's way more bad ones than good ones. So, when I see a good one, I usually use it as a case study of sorts to tell people what they should aspire to do. Not necessarily copy, but just to get the best practices from it. But so many websites are bad, and I don't necessarily mean aesthetically, although that also happens. Sometimes you have very sleek websites, but then the copy and the messaging is just completely off.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Yep, yep, totally.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

You and I had a list of subtopics we wanted to cover, so-

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Basics, let's start with some basics.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

Basics of an architecture website.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Good place to start.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

You were going to start, what do you it should be and how?

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Okay, so this one, I'm going to give a really annoying answer. I used to be so firm about what this should be, the basics of what it should try and accomplish in terms of generating leads, or inquiries, or what have you, what it would need to do that and what it wouldn't need. But as I've grown over time as a marketing person, I think about website basics being, depends on your strategy, because I meet very different types of firms and some firms are really focused on activation and getting inquiries and trying to convert more of their visitors into leads and project opportunities, which is great. That's definitely an important job.

But then there's other firms that I meet and speak to me and they say, "Well, we're all good on that front. That's not really our issue. We are just trying to really change the type of client that we have or the way that we are seen as a brand, as a practice." And for them their website has very, very different basics that it needs to achieve that job. I've muddied the waters a little bit with that spiel.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

I think that's the place to start, because you shouldn't even begin to designed or design for you before exactly what you wanted to accomplish.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

What your objective is. It sounds very marketing person to say that, but it's very true. I think sometimes I see some practices or firms applying, they're applying a strategy or some tactics for the wrong objective. They're not carefully thinking about what they're actually trying to achieve and they see what another firm is doing and they'll do the same thing, but they don't realize that that other firm is trying to achieve something completely different. And it might not have anything to do with getting new business, believe it or not, or whatever. It might be a totally different, coming from a totally different place.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

It's like that conversation that our dear friend Nikita had started on LinkedIn a while back about the controversial big website, because they used to have a very cartoonish, childish, playful website. And that website always annoyed me because it was really a pain in the arse to navigate and find information about projects. But they said, "Oh, that website was" ... Someone said that website was designed to attract employees and intern.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Yeah, 100%.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

And so if you look it at from that perspective, yeah, it makes sense. I still think it was a terrible website, but maybe I'm a little more nuanced. I think your point spot on on that, but I think there's something ... If we look at a website in terms of what is the lowest or minimal viable products-

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Exactly.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

... kind of goal you should have. I think for architects there are a few things that generally, again, may not apply to a 100% of people, but I think for most it would, you want it to be crystal clear, the website, to make it crystal clear what you do and who you do it for. So, your messaging can be very simple and very brief, but it has to be crystal clear. If you're going to show your work, it should be shown in a way that's elegant, easy to navigate, and easy to comprehend. And anything beyond that I think is gravy. But if at the very minimum you have maybe even very simple looking but elegant and well-designed website, which you can accomplish with services like Squarespace, by the way.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Yep, definitely.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

You definitely have a custom website done for you. It's always better, but it's also very expensive. Squarespace is 30 bucks a month or 40 bucks a month.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Yep, definitely.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

I think that as far as the basics are concerned, that's how I'd look at it is, if nothing else make it a nice interactive business card or calling card that people will at the very least not be repulsed by.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Yeah, definitely.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

And at best attracted to.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

You have an online presence at that point. I definitely do get approached by small practices that have been operating for two or three years and they don't actually have a website yet, and that's not great at all. Because they're stuck trying to make decisions about, "What do I do with the brand name, or the logo? Or should I or shouldn't I engage a graphic designer to do this professionally? Should I do this myself?" I think-

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

They don't have a website, you mean not at all?

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Not at all.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

Not even a placeholder?

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Not even a placeholder. No placeholder. They've bought a domain name and that to me is, that doesn't matter what your objective is, that's not going to work. I think if we're talking about practices at a very, very early stage, you wouldn't think that we're speaking to that big of an audience saying, "Get a simple Squarespace website." But there are actually a lot of them out there. I get emails from them all the time. That's definitely the first stage. I think just more broadly a thing that's applicable to a bunch of different practices is that the basics of a website can also mean not very many projects as well. And there are some really, really beautiful websites that are just one project, or three projects, or two projects, and that's fine. And it comes across really beautifully. One of-

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

I have a client who's a more established firm, not huge, but they're up there and they do exquisite work. And I know for a fact that they design dozens, if not hundreds of projects, but their website has, I'm pretty sure it's less than a dozen, maybe even less than 10, but only the best. And the pictures for each one of them are top notch.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Yeah, that's the way to do it. That's definitely the way to do it.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

I want to put on my contrarian hat for a second. Do you think it's still possible to be a successful architecture firm without any website at all? And I'm not talking about presence elsewhere online, I'm saying just no website.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

It might be possible, but the funny thing is, there's not a whole bunch of examples I can even think of where there's a successful architecture firm that doesn't have a website. Just the other day I was looking at a successful-ish architecture firm that popped up that didn't have an Instagram. And that caught me as weird because these days that's very rare that you'll find a reasonably established architecture practice that doesn't have an Instagram. And I remember thinking, for how well known this practice is, they're not that well known, which is a weird thing to say. But for how established they are maybe is a better way to put it, they're surprisingly under the radar. And it's funny what an impact I feel like not having that presence is.

Now, I think not having a website is just going to, it's going to be a hundred times worse in terms of lack of visibility, not turning up when people look for, you just can't be having that, right? How do you not turn up on Google when people put your name in by not having a website? It's just so bad for business, I can't see anybody doing it, hey? What do you reckon?

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

I would tend to agree with you, I think. Like I mentioned before, the very least, buy domain name and have a one-page website with your name and your contact info. There's actually, it's not an architecture firm, but I think it's a graphic design and communications firm out of New Zealand called Alt Group. You might know them.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

No, I don't.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

And it's altgroup.net and their homepage, they only have one homepage and it's all white and there's a short sentence in the middle of it that says, "This page intentionally left blank."

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Yeah, exactly. That comes back to the initial thing of brand and what you want to do as a brand. When you're at that stage of your marketing journey where your priorities are more around quality of client, brand perception, employee quality, employee, potential employee interest in the practice, whatever trying to brand equity you're trying to build, you could have a very dysfunctional website be part of that story. And firms that aren't at that stage will look at you and think you've lost your mind and that you've lost it. But there's actually a lot of value in occasionally making moves like that if they're from a really good brand perspective. So, a website that is blank like that, and that might be unintentional. Sometimes brands do things that are unintentionally important to their brand, even though it's just sloppiness.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

No, and this is intentional.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Like Berkshire Hathaway.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

This is intentional from other people who know them who say they're the busiest graphic design firm in the world. They don't need a website. So that's kind of important.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Exactly. Which is part of their brand image. It has to be done carefully and done by somebody who's professional at executing that, because if you try to implement that strategy yourself, you definitely are on that fine line between pretentiousness and cool brandness. There's a very, very careful line to tread there and you don't want to necessarily tip too far over the other side. But yeah, that sort of move makes sense. I mean, in the last year I rebranded, I changed my website and I went much more towards trying to define what the brand is about and try and position myself higher in the industry to work with better known or more respected practices was my goal or direction I wanted to go. Bigger practices, more architecturally practices.

And part of that was the trade off that came with that was going, "We're not going to have as much information on the page. We're not going to describe our services in as much detail. We're not going to do this whole variety of different things that were really positive towards getting more business." And I see people all the time criticizing websites for not having enough information or whatever. I used to do that myself, but I've realized that definitely creates a shift in terms of how the brand's seen. Sometimes it can be for a good reason, even though as a byproduct you might not get as many inquiries, or you might not get as many people who understand your service as well as they did before. But those things aren't always universally positive. Sometimes those can be bad things, believe it or not.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

You can get a lot of tire kickers and then waste time vetting them, versus like you said, if you move up market and you get fewer inquiries, but your average sale is like sometimes what you used to do then makes sense.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

It's interesting. I mean, look, I honestly think I probably get more tire kickers because what I'm not putting out as much information about how my services are structured. I'm keeping it way more, part of the brand strategy is keeping it a lot more broad and ambiguous, which is really the opposite of what my approach used to be. It was incredibly structured, productized, detailed, perfectly described. It was really, really broken down. So, nobody that was coming to me was like, "What do you do and how do you do it?" They knew, because it was written in complete detail on my website.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

Is a year enough time for you to gauge the effectiveness of your rebrand?

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

The effectiveness happened straight away, really it did. Just straight away, different type of client was coming to me that wouldn't have come to me before. It put me in a little bit of a different league in terms of that perception. I also just feel like, this is a website thing, but having the tools you need to do business and making those yourself or having somebody prepare those for you, things like fee proposal templates and presentation templates and all these capability statement templates. Getting those professionally done is, in terms of sales is a really game changing upgrade in terms of having all of that stuff done at a really high level. It just makes you look, it presents so much better to a sophisticated client, to a high value client that anybody would want to work with them.

But yeah, so I think that's what I think of when it comes to the website stuff in terms of depending on what stage you're at and how those priorities change you might be doing things. Not all marketing is just about trying to get somebody to contact you, so sometimes it's doing things. And when we're talking about project selection, for example, that is also a bit of a mindset shift to narrow down on your project selection, because it does sometimes mean leaving out the possibility that that project number 25, 30, project number 55, that there's something in that is different or unique that would appeal to some project type, that can be quite hard to let that go.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

A very simple tactic to overcome that fear if that's ever ... Because my website is grossly out of date, it's so much out of date that I'm not going to say how long it's been since I updated it. But I've been going through my entire catalog of pictures and reorganizing everything, and I'm posting not every project, but every project that I can like or can stand behind from a professional perspective, I'm posting it on Behance. That will be a lower level, "everything goes" portfolio that's not necessarily geared towards clients, but if clients wants to see a specific project that I can put them there.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

That's fair.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

But when I do get around to revamping my website, then the website will only have the best of the best and that might end up being a couple dozen projects out of 250 or something. I think the curation is really a big part of the process. Let's move to the dos and don'ts of websites and what people should consider doing and absolutely avoid. I think I only have really one piece of advice in that area is, don't do something just because you see one of your competitors do it and you think it looks cool, or you like it. Anything that goes on one's website should really be a reflection of the overall brand strategy as you mentioned before, and it should have a purpose. If your competitor does something that makes sense to them and you find it looks cool but does nothing for you, then that's the reason why you shouldn't do it basically. What's your take on dos and don'ts? What do you have for us?

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

I think what you said earlier about a simple message is a really good one to talk about in terms of a do, because I think it's an area that a lot of architects are really frustrated with is literally it's probably one of the most common briefs I get in terms of people contacting me. They go, "I really need help clarifying my message, simplifying my message." That's always there. Just really just picking a few key things to narrow down on. You don't have to say 15 different reasons that you're a good architect or that your work's good or the 12 ways that your spaces are nice. Just pick two or three things. Keep it really simple in terms of your messaging.

And you just got to prioritize that. I think prioritize a couple things. Be afraid to not say some stuff, sorry, don't be afraid to not say some stuff. You don't have to talk about every other way that your stuff's good. I think it's just certain, just confidence and just narrow down on a couple of things. And usually you'll be able to decide what they are if you just make a list and then start to prioritize what would the two or three most important important things on this list be. So, I think that's a do.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

Yeah, and to add to that, I find that a lot of architects really have a hard time putting themselves in their client's shoes and thinking of their work in terms of, "What benefit does it bring to my client? What does the work I do, do for my client?" Because 90% of architecture firms, even the best ones talk about themselves. "We are X, we do this, we won those awards, we are awesome, blah, blah." No one gives a shit about that. What people want to know-

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

I do.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

And that's psychology, it's not-

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know what you say. Yep, totally.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

... is, what are you going to do for them? Which of their problems that keep them up at night are you going to help them solve? And once you hit that ... Many architects complain about not being able to charge enough. That's because they don't do what I just said. The ones who do, and I have several clients who actually have gone through that transformation and have started talking to their clients in different ways. They charge whatever fee they want, because they're positioned as the expert and people will pay for their expertise. The problem with most architects is they're seen as a commodity because they all sound the same. So, the messaging should really be about, and that's the hardest part, I'll be honest, that's really hard to do, and that's why it's good to hire people who know how to write those things. Like good copyright-ish-

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Definitely. Definitely.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

... to hammer it out for you. You may have a hunch as to what it is, but a good sales, even a sales copywriter, I know it's sacrilege for me to say that, because people hate sales copy, but guess what? Sales copy works. It's unappealing in many ways, but it works. It uses psychology to get people to do what you would like them to do.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And again, I'd say it depends on whether you're in that stage or not, because I think if you're going like, "I'm trying to get more inquiries, I'm just trying to increase the volume." Which is fine, by the way. Nothing wrong with that. That's like, that's where you're going to be at probably for the first several years. Or it's going to depend on what type of architect you are, what you'd aspire to be, all that sort of stuff. But getting more persuasive copy, more persuasive messaging, getting professional help with that I think is a really, really good idea.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

When I say sales copy, at a entry level it can be just basic sales copy, just to get people to take the action they want. But once you elevate your brand, you still want to think in those terms. And that's where I think some of the most persuasive people I've seen are very experienced advertising copywriters. So, you can do basic sales copy, like white paper type of stuff that's very salesy, effective but not very appealing. Or you can elevate your copy and work with someone who knows how to sell, but also knows how to make it sound interesting.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Yeah, exactly. I think so, definitely. It's also, you have to decide whether you want to talk about the architecture service. You're talking about the client shoes and relating to the client, what you're going to do for the client. You have to make a conscious choice about whether your messaging strategy is going to revolve around architect and client, the service side of it, the business, service side of the business, or your messaging should revolve more around the space. What are you actually selling? Because some clients come to certain architects because of the buildings and others come because of the architecture firm. And there's some firms that are both, but typically I find that practices will fall into one category or the other. There are really amazing architects that do incredible buildings that are award-winning that are sick, that photograph well that you see on the cover of Vogue Magazine or Architectural Digest.

They can offer a very, very mediocre service. It doesn't matter, because what they're delivering is pretty amazing and people are coming for that. If their copy was like, "We're going to work with you at every step of the journey and collaborate and listen." Everyone would be like, "Well, I don't really give a shit about that. I just want the thing that's on Architectural Digest cover."

There's a category of that customer and there's the category of that architect. But there's the other category, which is like the architect that doesn't do that work, they just do much more normal work. And the customer that's coming to them is not so much into that. That's not what they're coming for. They're not coming for the thing on the front of the magazine. They're coming for a nice house and a good service. And that architect, that's what their strength is, that's what they're really good at. They have to acknowledge they're probably just okay at the portfolio side, but they're really, really good at running a good business and being a good architect and a good person to work with, and then that's what they copy and stuff should accentuate, so-

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

I think you're right-

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

I think there's place for both, I think you need both.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

But I think there's more of the latter than the former, the star-studded level people who can actually run a business purely based on aesthetics. I think-

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Yeah, yeah. They're a small percentage. No, that's a great, and that's so true and that's important. But I think there's this two sides I've noticed. And they tend to just throw, they take massive shits on each other. They hate each other.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

They do.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

And I think it's cool to just go, there is two sides, and not every architect is a magazine cover architect, but that's okay. But thank God we have magazine cover architects. We love that. That's okay. They can do their thing. And magazine cover architects also shouldn't look down their nose at architects that have more sales or persuasion-driven coffee or are just trying to talk about how they're going to make it a smooth journey to work with a client on their first house and it's accessible. That's great. And I think you need both, but I think it's important for architects to think about which category they should probably position. And this is positioning, like marketing. We talk about positioning, looking at the whole landscape of the market and deciding, "Where should we plunk our business to be in the sweet spot? We're putting it in the right place." And so I think it's just positioning your practice realistically based on where you sit in terms of project versus service. So look, does that make sense?

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

Yeah, it does. I personally have a bit of an issue with the whole cover, magazine cover architects thing, because that's what you and I both went to architecture school and that's what we're fed in school. We all think we can become that. And the reality is, most people won't.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Well, it's something we think about. Yeah, no, sorry, go for it.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

But I also think that the sexy architecture takes way too much precedence over competent architecture that does what it's supposed to without necessarily going overboard on the aesthetic or image front. Which I think, as I get older, I find that way more important, because I'd rather see a decent, but average looking school that does what it's supposed to do really well. It functions really well, it helps students perform better, it helps the community life, whatever the case may be, than a very sexy school designed by say Zaha Hadid or her office, since she's no longer around. But that looks super sexy and is on all the magazine covers but starts falling apart five years in.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Maybe, maybe.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

And so there's also that to consider. If you can do both, if you're like a Louis Kahn or Mies van der Rohe and you have the ability to do both, more power to you. Because those guys were really exceptional architects on pretty much any level. But most architects aren't. I think it's a realistic conversation to be had about one's aspirations versus the reality and you're-

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Definitely.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

... paid to, because you can be a very competent and highly successful architect and never get published once.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Totally, totally.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

And there's nothing wrong with that. And I mean, most architecture is that way, to be honest. But we just think more about the sexy architecture because it's more in the culture and the psyche.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Definitely, definitely.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

But that's almost a conversation for another time.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Man, but honestly, I think that's the most important conversation. I think that's the conversation the industry needs to have when they talk about marketing. Because I speak at these events or sit on these panels and I just see the two sides talking at each other. And I don't think they realize they're talking about two industries within an industry. The publications, the architect, architect is in a completely different category to the other architect that is providing the architecture service but is not producing that cultural work. I guess, I think there's a hard way to put it.

I remember when I was working at a practice in Japan during my year between before my master's, and they were telling me that in Japan, I might have got this wrong, but they were telling me that there's, in their industry there's two categories of architect. There's a building architect and then an art architect. And there's two, and they're clearly defined. A practice will know whether it's in the art category or the building category, or construction category, or whatever you want to call it. And I think we have something like this in Australia. We have architects and building designers. But there was this idea that within architecture there's these camps that are clearly defined. But I think we get our wires crossed about different strategic things and tactics and what should we do and what shouldn't we do and what's the problem with architects versus, all these things. But I think there's room for both of these groups. But I think you're right, man, it's unrealistic to think that every practice will become or will want to become that practice that's on the magazine cover.

I think the problem that you pointed out is really true though, which is that there are definitely some trade ... There's some challenges if you're not that magazine cover architect. Because the industry, the media, the way that the public consumes architecture, which is primarily through images, that's all very driven towards and benefits that very portfolio-oriented architect. And frankly, that's why there's so many of them and they're so successful. The practices that I tend to interview on my podcast, I'm very biased towards those practices that are winning awards and in magazines. That just tends to be who I gravitate to. And part of the reason for that is that those are the people that the rest of the industry will want to listen to. They're influential, and that's the case. I mean, there are good local architecture practices that are doing good work, but they don't have very much profile. Their work's not published all over the place. Nobody in the industry's heard of them, but that's not a problem. They're running a good business, they're running a thriving little business.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

The same way a regular person wants to know everything about the superstar model and plain looking people are not that interesting. I mean, it's a bit crude to say it that way, but that's the reality of life.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Is it any different in fashion, music, art? Any creative industry is going to have people that are celebrities within that industry. And some clients are going to show a certain amount of, I don't know what the word for this is, but connoisseurship maybe, I think is the technical term. And they are going to be the art collector, or the watch collector, or the music listener who as a consumer knows all the people. And they know who the cool people are and they know who the people are doing the most cutting edge shit. And that's a category of customer that that part of the industry thrives on and speaks to. And when they have their marketing brief, it's like, "I want the client who is design savvy, who knows about architecture, who comes to us because of the quality of the work that we do. They've chosen us out specifically."

If you're saying any of those things in your marketing brief, it's because you are trying to attract that architecture connoisseur client. But the thing is, you have to be on the magazines to attract that client, because that's how they're influenced. If those are your goals, if that's who you want, you're going to have to step it up in that direction. But then again, just the other day I was giving a talk at this event thing in South Australia and somebody was going, "Our clients don't read magazines. They don't care about what other architects are doing. They don't give a shit about architecture awards." And that was a bit of a rebuttal to what I had spoken about, because I spoke about magazines and awards and all that sort of stuff. And you know what? Fair enough, their clients don't care about that. That's not a big deal. That's fine.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

This is my perfect cue to throw in an automotive analogy, because I love those.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Yeah, please. It should be a motorbike analogy for you, right, man.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

Well, I like both. I like both. But the point is, you can either buy a Toyota or a Ferrari. The Toyota, nobody will notice you, but it will do what it's supposed to do, will work forever. And if you take good care of it'll take good care of you. The Ferrari, everybody will stop you at the gas station. They'll come take selfies with you, but you'll have to pay $15,000 every time you want to do an oil change. And every time you want to-

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Totally-

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

... change your brakes it's going to be a $50,000 job. But you'll get the attention you're looking for. I think that's the perfect analogy, because that's really what, let's call it plain architecture versus magazine architecture, the dichotomy is, it's like you have to as a client and as a practice as well, you have to decide whether you want to be Toyota or Ferrari. And once you're clear on which you are, then you can focus on those clients that you-

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

A 100%. You've got to be clear on it, man. They've got to be realistic and you've got to even and decide, "Oh, maybe I want to be Ferrari. Who says they want to be Toyota?" That's always used as the analogy to the marketing people to get people thinking about making their brand better seen, right? It's like, "Do you want to be the Toyota or do you want to be the Mercedes, or whatever?" And everyone's meant to go, "Oh, I want to be the Mercedes." But it's a problem if you can't build the Ferrari car. If all you can build is the Toyota, if that's what your business does and produces. You're not going to get very far trying to have a Ferrari mindset when you're got a Toyota chassis. You know what I mean?

I think you have to actually have a realistic view and get some, I think that's where some outside feedback is valuable. That's what I'm, as a marketing consultant, I think also we have to put ourselves into categories. When I talked about my rebrand and business shift, it was about me deciding which category I wanted to move into and be in and be comfortable in. And I wanted to go into more of that, I don't want to say the Ferrari category, but screw it. The Ferrari ca category is where I wanted to be because I saw that's where I wanted to work in that area of the world.

Because at heart, I'm an architecture guy. I went to architecture school, I love fucking great architecture, and that's what I wanted to, I want to gravitate in that world. That's where I want my career to go. But I still love the marketing world for the Toyota, for the 90% of practices that are just doing good work, are working in their area, in their city, word of mouth. They're getting their name out there, they're doing business and they're doing great.

But I think there's a lot of marketing that works for them that you maybe don't even necessarily need a big time architecture marketing specialist to help you with, because really you're just trying to get inquiries. You're trying to keep your digital presence up. I think in some ways it's a little bit more straightforward. But I don't know, there's straightforward things to either side. Also, just putting your stuff, sending your stuff out to magazines is pretty straightforward in its own way. So look, there's like, there's elements to both of it. But man, I think that was a great place to go with this conversation, because I think it's at the core of the problem that perhaps just need to think about.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

Like you said before, that's the conversation the architecture industry needs to have. Not base their perception of themselves and others based on false premises, but really look at what the reality of their practice is and have those hard conversations with the people who help that market themselves, because that's really-

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Yeah, definitely. Definitely. And also, just also just stop criticizing each other. The two different sides. I feel like there's that Ferrari architect, there's a lot of people that on LinkedIn and stuff, whenever I post about this stuff or have a podcast about it that are like, "Well, isn't it something wrong with our society, or something wrong with architecture that there is this kind of architecture?" And that is probably a conversation for another day, but also, it's just self-evident that there is a lot of demand for that category of work, who we see that in the prominence of so many great architecture firms. So, it exists. It's a real thing. And I think it's just, deciding where you sit with it, I think is important. But yeah, man-

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

The nature of the business is such that architectural services are expensive, and so that tends to make them only accessible to people with deep pockets, or institutions with deep pockets. And there's that tension between the idealism of architecture when you're in school and you think you can design buildings for everyone. But the reality is, most people can't afford an architect. And that's why we have large-scale developers who built tract housing and replicate the same house a 1,000 times to keep their costs down and be able to pass it on. And yeah, those are not architects' houses. Are they bad? I don't know, I've never lived in one. Maybe not that great, but maybe not that horrible either.

But I think that the problem is, I don't know if there's a way to square the circle, if that's even a thing you can say. That might be a Frenchism. Between the desire of architects to do all kinds of work, including for people that may not have the means for it. And the reality of the business is that you're going to have to work for people with deep pockets one way or another, whether it's large projects for big companies or institutions, or wealthy clients who can afford their dream home. I don't know if that's a problem you can ever solve, but it's an interesting debate, to be sure.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Man, I have seen, okay, so on the one hand, I totally agree. I think that there's a lot of architects, man. We're a very granular industry. Australia, I don't know, I think there's 12,000 architecture firms, or something along that line. It's crazy. We're a small country. We have a lot of architecture firms. There should be enough architects at both the high end, the middle end, the affordable end at any given time to be able to cater to anybody who wants an architect. There is not an architect shortage. There's a shortage of everything else. There is not an architect shortage. So, anybody that wants to should be able to work with one. There is obviously a economy of scale thing with certain budgets and so forth, but there is lots of good studios that are trying to come up with ways to do just things with hourly rates or fixed fees.

There are studios that are structuring ways to make it possible that people with very ... Budgets that would have previously been impossible to work with an architect, they are finding ways to do it. So, that that's a really, really good thing to see. But I think when I say there's no shortage, I also, on the same time I see a lot of architects and ones that I work with that are trying to launch new ways to make architecture more accessible into the public. And those projects are failing. And some succeed, but a lot of them fail, because unfortunately the demand is not there. Not for them in particular, but it just seems like actually there isn't as much demand for architecture as architects think there is. And we just take it for granted that there's all these people that want to work with architects, but there's just too many barriers to entry.

But I actually think it's the opposite problem. There's a lot of actually great architects that would love to offer their services more broadly to the public, and the public don't want it. I'm like, "How do we actually solve that problem, or work on that?" And I think that is a marketing challenge, but something that's come up over time is this idea of, how does architecture, the category market as an industry? We're not like dog food. We don't have two big companies, or we do get together as an industry, but we don't market as an industry or advertise as an industry. We don't do any market research or any really great market research in the industry, at least in Australia. It's been a long time since any of our peak bodies have commissioned any half decent market research or run any good ad campaigns in my opinion.

I think that there's a lot of room for improvement there. I feel like maybe that's the way to get more design out there is to actually try and get the public more into it. And I think anybody that's doing anything that's about trying to get the public educated or excited or involved in architecture is a really good thing. So, I think more of that. It's part of the-

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

And I think the part of the problem is, in my opinion, twofold, is one, there's been a lack of innovation in architecture, because we've been building the same way for let's say a century-

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

What you're saying, yep.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

And I think that lack of innovation is not for lack of architects trying, but I think it's predominantly regulatory in nature. Regulations make it nearly impossible to innovate for a myriad of reasons. And I think that's one of the big problems of architecture. And it also leads to the housing crisis that we're all experiencing. I don't know in Australia, but in Canada it's 90% of it is regulatory.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Oh, okay. Yeah, I mean-

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

If the government loosened the rules just a bit we would be able to build a lot more and a lot faster.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Yeah, there's that side to it, for sure. I mean, look, but you could also say maybe it's good to see some architects are getting out there really in terms of policy and advocacy and dealing with government. I have no idea how you deal with government and get regulation changed and stuff like that. But there's some really smart architects that know how all of that stuff works, and they're out there having meetings with politicians and doing all this important stuff. And I think that that's incredibly impressive. Also, just in terms of innovation, I mean, I open up Twitter or Instagram every day. I see a photo that's absolutely viral of an architectural space generated by AI or something like that. Or these people that are building these AI architecture and interior services just gaining 10,000 followers a day because it's becoming absolutely this phenomenon. And not a single one of them are architects.

There's this also interesting sort of thing of there are these ... Where is the public interested in design? Where is their attention going? And it's like our architects, are they getting involved in that? I don't always feel like you just need to jump on whatever the latest trend is at all. But it's interesting because whenever there's a sign that, "Hey, people are really interested in architecture." That always catches my attention because I never expect it. I'm used to people not being interested in architecture. So, whenever it's going viral on Twitter, I'm like, "Oh, shit, people are, there's lots of people and young people and this is amazing." Or a rapper will start tweeting about how much they want to learn about Frank Lloyd Wright or something, and I'm like, "Oh my God. Actually, architecture and culture, I love to see it." But so whenever we see signs of that, it's really positive. But I feel like that's also important piece of the puzzle.

But I also, maybe talking earlier about people being really divided on things or these two sides in the industry, I think these are areas where both sides can see the benefit of there being improvement, whether it's like regulation, whether it's technology, whether it's like culture promoting the industry. I think that's something that everyone can get around. So, I'm also happy that we talked about that, because I think those are also those conversations that architects need to keep having, because it's not just them taking shots at each other about whether or not people should have $5 million houses or not, and whether architecture should be involved in that, so I really like to see it. It's really good.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

Yeah, I think it comes down to what can you learn from the other side? Because there's something to learn. But I think that this architects shitting on each other is also a reflection of the scarcity mindset that you see a lot in the industry. As opposed to a growth mindset where you can easily picture that there's room for everyone, or for most people.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Definitely.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

And I mean, we're getting a bit sidetracked into a whole different debate here, but I think those are all fascinating things to talk about. We only touched about half of the points we wanted to make about website.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

It doesn't matter. We'll do it another time.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

Yeah, so I'm thinking we should wrap up, because I believe you have to go and it's almost bedtime for me, and do the other half next conversation.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Let's do it.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

Let's post this on YouTube in the meantime.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Yep, always a pleasure, Arnaud. Thank you so much, mate. We started about websites. We got derailed about two minutes in and started talking about the industry. Perfect, we should just chop out the bit about websites at the beginning and we'll be good to go. Thanks, Arnaud.

Arnaud Marthouret (RVLTR):

I think those are the best conversations. You start somewhere and you end up somewhere unexpected.

Dave Sharp (Office D. Sharp):

Yeah, exactly. Awesome. Thanks, mate.

Photographic Sprezzatura

In a conversation, two acquaintances of mine made the case that it made no sense whatsoever to represent architecture (specifically in drawings and photographs) without people, since architecture is, you know, primarily made for people.

They’re absolutely right. Putting people in architectural representations is sensible as it gives a sense of scale, flow, and suggests that the space being depicted is in service of its users. Not to mention that we intuitively respond better to our environment when it contains living organisms, as they attract our attention more readily than inert objects.

One of the commentators suggested that it would make sense to push this idea further and photograph spaces in their natural state: dirty dishes, socks lying around, etcetera. While this may make sense on the surface, the problem with it is that we don’t perceive a space in 3D the same way we do with a 2D depiction of said space. Clutter, when reduced to two dimensions, exponentially takes on epic proportions. Small objects in the wrong spot, stray wires and such have the potential to render an image merely average, even if all the other aspects of the photograph are spot on.

This is why stylists exist. They take a blank space and visually turn it into one that naturally looks lived in. But if you were to walk through the scene, their staging would make no sense to you as it’s purely designed to evoke a certain atmosphere from one point of view alone. That’s because, as previously mentioned, the three-dimensional experience of a space bears very little resemblamnce to its two-dimensional depiction.

Male fashionistas love to chase after the idea of sprezzatura, or studied carelessness, which aims at composing extremely deliberate outfits, while appearing effortless. These are near perfect in every way and then some random element is added to make it look effortlessly elegant. It often manifests itself in leaving a button undone or tying a scarf in a slightly imbalanced way. In reality, they’ve spent hours looking at themselves in the mirror to create this look.

This analogy applies to photography of human spaces. If I photographed your kitchen the way you left it untidy this morning, the pictures would look like shit. But if I carefully recomposed the essence of that mess, making it look good from the camera’s angle, it would look, to an outside observer, as if I tried to randomly spread your dirty dishes around without rhyme or reason. In truth, the composition is calculated.

So, if you have the desire to make your space look lived-in, remember the idea of sprezzatura, making it look good seemingly without effort, all in service of that one image that will convey a certain ideal. And keep in mind that a stylist or a photographer agonized for hours over the composition of that one shot.

We’re always walking a fine line between reality and deception, but I’d argue that so long as no false promises are made, all visual trickery is fair game.

Are You In A Bubble?

I'll be the first to admit that I can write stuff that's serious and intense at times. Therefore, on Fridays I'll be featuring something more lighthearted, fun, or creative, so we can all end the week on a high note. Have a great weekend!

A fun little quiz to take and see if you are indeed living in a bubble. While I wouldn’t put too much weight on its validity, it’s an interesting thought experiment to take it and reflect on the results.

Why you should avoid TikTok like the plague... Sort Of.

Awards and published articles are the holy grail of many an architecture firm, as it is commonly assumed that these will bring clients to the door. While they do have merits, although not necessarily for the reason stated above (more on that later), there are also a myriad of other unexplored avenues to promote your firm to the world.

We are truly at an interesting crossroads, because we have access to many, many ways to promote our work, but that also comes with a challenge: it’s often hard to separate the wheat from the chaff and decide where to promote a design business. Indeed, social media, traditional media, design blogs, youtube, your own website, paid ads are among many of the ways to promote oneself.

Before you jump ahead and say “I need to be on TikTok, because that’s where everybody is going these days” allow me to pause for a second take a breath.

The first thing to consider when defining how you want to market your business, is to determine where your potential clients are most likely to hang out. If you only do industrial buildings, there is hardly any point in being on social media, because the decision makers that you’re trying so hard to attract are most likely not on Instagram, much less watching bored pre-teens doing silly dances on TikTok. They’re way more likely to attend trade shows, read trade publications and be active on linkedin. If you are a residential architect, then trying to get into House & Home, Designlines or grail of all grails, Architectural Digest is likely to make more sense. Perhaps Instagram and Pinterest too.

All of this is purely pragmatic thinking, you don’t need to like the medium you’re being promoted on. Actually, trying to develop a presence in places you like may be detrimental to your marketing, unless you’re doing this strictly for vanity (which then has nothing to do with growing your business) or you’re lucky to share the exact same tastes as your intended audience.

Before any of that, and by far the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of your marketing is to be crystal clear on what your offering is and who it is aimed at. You can think of it as a kind of heuristic equation in the form of:

Specialty (expertise) x Market (type of client).

Picking a profitable niche is an exercise in zooming in and out on either side of the equation. In other words, while it’s indispensable to operate in a niche narrow enough to eliminate all but the few most qualified competitors, you want to avoid going so narrow as to operate in a niche without competitors, but also without or too few clients.

Thus, in the above equation, if you zoom into one side, i.e. narrow the breadth of possibilities, you’ll want to widen up on the other side. E.g one can be an architect specializing in private plastic surgery clinics nationwide, but it would likely be too narrow to pick the same specialty but restrict it to Ottawa alone. Conversely, one could realistically decide to do industrial buildings in Southern Ontario exclusively, because of the unique constraints bearing on this particular typology in this specific locale, while still being part of a market large enough to sustain a practice. Keep in mind that these are completely made up and not necessarily viable business ideas, but a mere illustration to make my point.

Too many firms, even many of the large successful ones have a hard time picking a niche because they’re too afraid to specialize, but there are many small and nimble highly specialized firms out there that do very well, because they are seen as the experts in their field.

As my dear friend Dave Sharp wroteon this blog a while back, many firms are afraid of crossing the chasm once they see their first success. You can’t be everything to everyone and trying to be is a fool’s errand.

So before you decide where to promote your work, it is a good idea to spend some time thinking about what niche your business might excel in and see if there is an opportunity to specialized in that specific area of expertise.

The next step is actually going out into the world and trying it on for size, but that’s for another article.

When, and only when you’ve figured out who you serve with which services you can start thinking about your dream so becoming a TikTok superstar.

GPS

I'll be the first to admit that I can write stuff that's serious and intense at times. Therefore, on Fridays I'll be featuring something more lighthearted, fun, or creative, so we can all end the week on a high note. Have a great weekend!

Everything you’ve ever wanted to know about GPS (warning, really long read).

A Heuristic To Stay Informed Without Going Crazy

I have a confession to make. I’ve recently broken my own rule: I’ve been following the news online, specifically about the truckers’ protests. One of the reasons I broke the rule is because I believe this event to be of historic proportions and transformative in ways we can’t begin to imagine just yet, but I digress.

While spending an inordinate amount of time looking at the news I’ve noticed something: a lot of ”news” articles (I use the term very liberally) are really just opinion pieces masquerading as news. One of the techniques they employ is to embed tweets from random people, who happen to have an opinion on the topic at hand and most of these opinions happen to agree with the thesis of the piece.

I don’t have a problem embedding tweets if they bring some facts to light, say a video of an event happening that illustrates a point, or a piece of breaking news that is not available elsewhere, but when writers (because these aren’t journalists) try to manipulate their readers by using the old tactic of the third-party endorsement to shore up their point, that’s where I draw the line, because it’s transparently deceptive.

Scott Adams, in his book “Loserthink” explains this phenomenon: that media companies, with the advent of the internet, have had to adapt to a new economic reality and gained access to insights about their work that they never had to before. Indeed, it is now possible for media companies to get analytics with such a level of granularity, such as which kinds of headlines get more clicks, that they invariably ended up moving closer and closer to constant fear-mongering, anxiety inducing headlines, because it is what sells. Others too, have made this argument, but Adams’ has so far been the one most clearly laid out that I’ve seen.

What this means is that in ad-based news outlets, no matter how hard one tries, the economic reality will always push them towards outrage porn, as opposed to the old fashioned ethical journalism of yore. I’m not trying to claim that the olden times were perfect, merely that by virtue of the technology at hand, they couldn’t be as morally corrupt as they are today. Journalism’s history is littered with examples of obvious bias and morally questionable opinions.

Adams add that, as individual humans, we’re not intellectually equipped to fight this trend, because media companies have enormous resources that one human brain cannot fight, let alone spend the time trying to separate the truth from the bullshit, because we all have lives to live and bills to pay.

However, being aware of this issue is a good first step. In spite of all evidence that it is harmful, if you do end up reading the news online, you’re a little better equipped with a healthy dose of skepticism toward any news source, no matter what side it comes from.

But if you do see articles that “support” their “facts” with opinions from random, angry, twitter trolls, you’re probably better off closing that browser tab and looking for less transparently manipulative news sources.

If you’re curious about one such example of empty, meaningless, deceiving coverage that is solely created to create fake outrage at a non-existent problem, look at this piece through the lens of my argument above. That ought to be enough to prove my point, just scroll all the way down to watch it happen.

Remember: garbage in, garbage out. The quality of information one ingests, directly impacts one’s life in real ways that are not always very obvious.

PS: there are increasing numbers of subscription-based news sources, where good journalists are writing great stories and getting paid directly by their readers. No middlemen, no click-bait and click-based revenue models. Jen Gerson, Matt Gurney (The Line), Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi are some of those among many. I truly believe this to be the where the ethical, balanced journalism of tomorrow will live.

Mastery Visualised

Malcolm Gladwell is famous for popularizing the idea that it takes 10,000 hours to master any subject. By my last count, I’ve never dedicated 10,000 hours to anything in my life, not even photography (although getting closer and closer, but shhh, don’t tell anyone), so the idea of being a true master of anything as I imagine it, still feels a little foreign to me.

In my mind, once that level of mastery is reached, problems are no longer problems, but merely solutions waiting to be found, as the mastery is what makes them evident or at the very least, easier to find a solution to a problem.

Larnell Lewis (a native Torontonian) has been playing drums since the age of 2, so there is no question that he is a true master of the discipline. This video is the perfect visualisation of what mastery looks like. Seeing him listening to “Enter Sandman” by Metallica for the first time and then proceeding to replicate it nearly flawlessly is a sight to behold.

Bitcoin or Shit

I'll be the first to admit that I can write stuff that's serious and intense at times. Therefore, on Fridays I'll be featuring something more lighthearted, fun, or creative, so we can all end the week on a high note. Have a great weekend!

If you’re tired of hearing about Bitcoin, but still don’t quite understand it, here is a very simple concept that exploits the law of FOMO to help you understand the value of bitcoin. To be honest, it also appeals to me because it’s irreverent, so use it at your own discretion.

Kudos to whoever created this. It’s a great reframe of the value of cryptocurrencies and specifically bitcoin as a tool to explain this to laymen.

You Won’t Get Rid of Me so Easily Now

I’m typically not one for the heavy celebration of personal accomplishments, I’m typically more like pour a glass of really nice bourbon and enjoy the short-lived pleasure kind-of-guy.

Why do you ask? Because I suffer from this incurable disease called downplayititis. As much as setting and reaching goals is sweet in itself, as soon as one is reached, I think of the next one, and so on.

It’s a blessing and a curse because it’s really hard for me to recognize personal accomplishments (and I don’t like too much praise). I recently obtained my Canadian citizenship and this time, the accomplishment feels a little different.

Is it middle-aged maturity? Is it the goal in itself? I don’t know. I do know that this has been 16 years in the making (I know, I’m slow) and for some reason, it feels special. While I never quite felt at home in my home country, after 16 years in Canada, I have to admit that it feels more like home than anything else I’ve experienced before. Yes, it’s far from perfect, but when I look at what’s happening elsewhere in the world, I realize how truly blessed we are to live here in Canada.

It’s a beautiful, welcoming place that gives anyone ready to work hard a platform to build a great life and so having access to that opportunity somehow feels very sweet.

While I’ve always been interested in politics from a philosophical perspective, I’ve never been really political, much less involved in it, and always judged the political scene with a skeptical, dare I say, cynical eye. But becoming Canadian somehow changed all that.

There is a culture of dogged optimism, possibility, and civility in this country that one doesn’t find in many other places. It is a great place to live and that makes it worth preserving. Whether we share the same views politically, it doesn’t matter, what matters is that we can debate these things among civilized persons and just agree to live peacefully with one another.

In spite of what one may think, I still think that it’s possible if one ignores the grating and divisive nature of corporate and social media. There are still avenues for civilized debates about how to make this land even greater.

My message is this: the world hasn’t changed as much as we think. People are still people and if one ignores the noise, there is a lot to be optimistic about, but it’s more important to act than to speak (and write), so with these words of wisdom out of the way, I’m going to go find something meaningful to do.

I’m sorry to say, but you won’t get rid of me so easily now that I can truly call this place home.

Tannenbaum's Commandments of Messaging

I’ve recently interviewed advertising veteran copywriter George Tannenbaum, a colorful character who loves to mock the deviance of big ad and is one of the most compelling copywriters I’ve had the pleasure to read (you’ll understand by just reading this, and this).

Our upcoming interview is about some of the lessons that our industry can learn from good copyriting (it will come out next week). When I asked George about what someone like you could do to get better at marketing themselves, we took a detour to discuss a few simple rules that anyone can use to measure their marketing against. They are all very self-explanatory, so I’ll spare you the Captain Obvious® literal explanation because they require none.

Here we go:


Full credit goes to George and his friend Neil Raphan. Images courtesy of George.

The Tale of the Omega Team

If like me, you sometimes fantasize about the future and what it holds for humans, you must have given some thought to AI and its potential impact on the world. While predictions range from the end of the world to the emergence of a benevolent superintelligence, this short story (warning, if you start, you won’t want to stop), lays out one such possible scenario, but it’s the intricacies of the story and how AI comes about that are truly fascinating.

What role do you think AI could play in the design world? Will we see better architecture as a result?

More Neighbours

Hot on the heels of my recent interview with Chris Spoke on the missing middle, I wanted to share with you this initiative that Chris mentioned on the podcast.

Anyone interested in solving the dreadful housing crisis should get involved. Be sure to check out their response to the housing affordability task force.

Surrogacy: Killing Two Birds With One Stone

I'll be the first to admit that I can write stuff that's serious and intense at times. Therefore, on Fridays I'll be featuring something more lighthearted, fun, or creative, so we can all end the week on a high note. Have a great weekend!

New technologies aren't always bad and can be especially empowering when they help people achieve goals that they otherwise wouldn't be able to achieve.

This story about a professional egg donor and surrogate mother is especially meaningful and touching as it gives people who struggle to get pregnant the ability to have biological children of their own and donors/surrogates to achieve financial freedom.

The idea of collaborative reproduction frees us from the shackles of biology, which can be a good when it supports one's purpose. It’s a very touching, human thing.

Paris' Pissoirs

While aimlessly wandering through Paris during a recent visit, I walked through a riverside park that had an interesting collection of innovative urinals. While I’m not particularly fond of these, I thought they were interesting as designed objects and also reminded me that the French are away less uptight about their bodily functions than the Anglos are.

Some of these designs have been poorly received by the local population, but wouldn’t it be better to have them than not and thus reduce random urination anywhere?

Other cities have experimented with and up until very recently, the old school urinals from the 19th century were still in use in some cities, I remember relieving myself in those as late as 20 or 25 years ago (how scandalous). Not to mention that the main reason why early public urinals fell into disuse - the lack of options for Women - is basically solved by Madame Pee.

What do you think? Yay or Nay?

©2022 RVLTR

©2022 RVLTR

What Kind of Content Would You Like to See?

As I mentioned a couple of months ago, I took some time off from this blog (which resulted in many of the recent images published on this blog) traveling and resting in preparation for what seems to be shaping up to be a wild 2022.

I’m still in the process of figuring out what I would like this blog to become, but I would also like to hear from you in the spirit of providing more of the content you like and less of that you don’t like.

If you could take a minute to fill out the survey here, I would be forever grateful.

Privacy note: In the spirit of transparency, I am not collecting any personal, identifiable information and will not use anything that’s collected for commercial purposes or share it with any third party.

Fontfroide Abbey

The Fontfroide Abbey is a Cistercian abbey near Narbonne. It dates back to the 11th, with a storied past since. In the early twentieth century, it was saved by private preservationists and turned into a kind of artist colony.

Not only the roman architecture (with some early gothic influences) is of great interest, but the landscape around it is even more amazing. Tucked away within a small valley and surrounded by hills, it is as serene and restorative as it is beautiful.

©2022 RVLTR

©2022 RVLTR

Tux and Fanny

I'll be the first to admit that I can write stuff that's serious and intense at times. Therefore, on Fridays I'll be featuring something more lighthearted, fun, or creative, so we can all end the week on a high note. Have a great weekend!

If you’re looking for an innocent, completely bizarre and surreal break from life, look no further. This cartoon, which started as a very popular Instagram series is the story of “two friends living together in the forest” and going on adventures.

Don’t mistake its cheap-looking aesthetic for low-quality, it’s an engaging story that one can watch alone or with friends and family and is suitable for everyone.

It’s even better that you can watch it for free.

Fort de Salses

At one point a fortress guarding the border between Catalonia and the Kingdom of France, it was a very innovative piece of military infrastructure for its time, and unique for the fact that it sat at the transition between medieval castle architecture and more modern fortresses.

It was designed to be nearly un-takeable, with many hidden architectural features aimed at making life hell for anyone who dared to assail it and could withstand long sieges with spring water feeding the fortress directly and enough men and supplies to last months.

©2022 RVLTR

©2022 RVLTR

Chateau Royal de Collioure

The Chateau, located in the town of Collioure, near the border with Spain, was for a longtime strategic position for whoever ruled the area and changed hands many times over the centuries.

While architecturally, it’s a bit of a hodge-podge of additions and upgrades that were aimed at keeping up with the evolutions in warfare, it has an illustrious history, not the least of which was a 17th century struggle that involved the Spanish and the French in which d’Artagnan (the real one, not the fictionalized version of it) and his musketeers were instrumental in taking the castle from the Spaniards.

It is a humongous fortress that gives one a comprehensive glimpse in the region’s complicated history.

©2022 RVLTR

©2022 RVLTR

Following Pagnol's Footsteps

Marcel Pagnol, was at one point a hugely popular author, originating from the Marseille region. He is perhaps best known for his “Souvenirs d’Enfance” novels recounting his time as a young boy in the Marseille backcountry, which were famously adapted for film in a series of hugely popular 1990s flicks.

Despite having spent considerable time in the region, I had never visited these hills that are beautiful in and of themselves, but also rich in history. Hiking through the area was jaw-dropping from beginning to end.

©2022 RVLTR