Invisible, egomaniacal architects

There is a divide between how architects think about buildings and how occupants think about buildings. So what is the public's opinion, since we are so isolated from the real world, of architects and the architectural profession? They can't possibly think about us as much as we do. My guess is that people don't think about architects at all. Even so, what are common ideas about and stereotypes of architects? Is Howard Roark lurking out there, nameless?

Or maybe he isn'’t so nameless. One of last summer's Architectural Records described the Pritzker Prize winner for 2005 as "Architecture'’s Bad Boy,"” a man who refused to compromise his artistic vision, as if this were a good thing. Howard Roark is alive and well and working in LA. The problem with dear old Howard is that he will never have to live or work in one of his "“artistic visions" while potentially thousands of others will. What is the value of his vision once he's done with it? And why are we still promoting this attitude amongst architects? Hasn'’t it become apparent that it's destructive to the profession? That it loses us more commissions than it gains?

Where is architecture discussed? In K-12 education, medicine is discussed in health class, law in US History, and engineering in a math or physics class. I don'’t remember a single conversation about buildings in primary school. The only people who talk about architecture are architects and critics. And architects aren't seeking general public input on their process or ideas.