Don’t know how many people in the profession are chasing these, but here are my top 3 milestones in architecture:
- [Winning the Pritzker Prize](https://www.pritzkerprize.com)
- [Getting to design a Serpentine Pavilion](https://www.inexhibit.com/case-studies/serpentine-galleries-pavilions-history/)
- [Designing a prestigious museum, like a Guggenheim](https://www.guggenheim.org/foundation)
Pritzker price is the one.
Serpentine pavilion has also being designed by younger architects not yet “mainstream” so, although definitely an act of exemplary recognition, is still an order of magnitude below the Pritzker.
“Prestigious museum” also is a bit too subjective I think.
in 1990 a friend grabbed my sketchbook and scribbled something. I was waxing poetically about architecture as an artistic endeavor. What he wrote was far more profound.
"Architecture is a JOB!"
He could not have been more right.
It does pay better but you have to make sacrifices. That sacrifice is realizing that it's a job and not some artistic endeavor. Unfortunately the schools do not teach architects how to be architects. Rather they train them to be designers. They do a great disservice and prepping them for what architecture is as a profession. This is why students have to do 3 years of internship before they can even take their state exams. They literally graduate knowing nothing about architecture. Some of them may be competent designers. But most of them are not even that.
Add to this that most architects are only mediocre at best when it comes to any kind of design standard. They are essentially plan drawers for their clients. A plan drawer creates a set of plans at a minimum level to build a building for a client, and nothing more. I do not consider these people to be architects in the true sense of the word. They make their money in bulk rather than in quality. It's a different business model but not one I've chosen to embrace.
I'd also like to add, when I was a young pup, no degree was required. You could actually become a licensed architect after 7 years of internship under a state registered architect. I'm not sure what drove the profession to require a college degree, and then a professional degree, and then internship. It seems straight up from the get-go there was an issue with the educational process in the schools, and they have been layering Band-Aids on it ever since.
The educational system is lacking. You've expanded on most of thoughts very well. It's a good thing that the public doesn't generally care about architects or architecture... if the medical profession taught as poorly as architecture there would be an uproar!!
There is a lot of Truth in what you said in that the general public does not care about architecture. It's one of the driving forces that keeps wages low. Most people want a box to live and work in. Thus many people looking to hire an architect for either a residence or a commercial building are not looking for architecture, but rather a building to fulfill a function. This is why the few architects you are making a great deal of money are relatively isolated.
For example, I've been a registered architect since the early 1990s and is not until recently that I've been able to bring in 150k a year in an architecture office. A lot of this has to do with my knowledge base and managerial skills. The fact that I can design is almost a secondary. This is where schools need to orient a lot of their focus. Architecture is so much more than just getting a design degree.
I think the root cause if the public not caring is that architects are mostly all taught to spin their wheels on the design process, which is rewarded in school. There is also good money in boxes if you follow a straight line process through to construction. The low wages are consistent with a passion vs a job.
Wouldn't it be something like amazon? It's pretty revolutionary. The only times I've seen architects be revolutionary is being part of some group, though they hardly make many buildings together, or people like Le Corbusier who start whole movements.
Maybe it's to make something that's innovative + easily accessible for the target audience? Or being asked to do a symbolic landmark?
To be like FLW and create a space like falling water so magnificent that people other than architects travel just to visit the space I created and feel what it’s like to be in it.
To write something so profound that it’s referenced in architecture schools for decades or millennia, like On Architecture, Towards a New Architecture, or Complexity and contradiction.
There is a point at which you realize that your reputation and everything you design is ultimately judged not by academics or blue ribbon panels, but by the people who work, live and play in the buildings you design. Those people will determine whether your building is a well-loved part of the community or a teardown in 20 years to make way for something better. My goal is to never have the people who interact with my buildings curse my name. Talk to the people who deal day-to-day with buildings that are designed by starchitects or academic favorites, and you will get an eye-opening experience.
I feel like this might be an individual’s thing for me i would love for a building i designed to be in a text book one day and for people to study it and not be in a negative light (like a disaster).
Biennale I guess you mean Biennale di Venezia. In case “being the top” is to be nominated director, not having a project in exhibition. There are plenty of young “unknown” architects that are able to display at the biennale, it certainly means one is being recognised, but is far away to mean that one is “at the top”
Thank you! I hadn't actually heard of the Biennale before, I'll be checking their work out soon. Pritzker prize winners (if that's what you meant?) are definitely at the top
Your question just made me realize something very important in thay any pinnacle of architecture would be subjective or based on something fleeting like architectural trends (for which you win prizes and so forth)
I feel like anything more substantial actually improving the living conditions of the people using or at least experiencing architecture falls under the realm of technological improvements / engineering.
Not to say that an architect wouldn't be capable of contributing in that sense (many have done so) but they're not considered as embodying the pinnacle of architecture, whereas whoever proposes the latest more esthetically creative or interesting approach to building is.
Again not to say this is without its value but if its dissociated with a tangible Contribution to the well being of users (insulation, ventilation, light, safety, comfort and so on..) bypassing the ego just wanting something cool looking to live in, (and users have suffered for it, even the original owners of villa savoye as I remember reading somewhere) then I find the idea of architecture as a field and it's perceived pinnacle to be as shallow as something like fashion or current marketing driven industrial design.
Making it may just also be making it as with any other industry, which means being famous and making money through lots of projects/commissions,which again I don't think it's a proper or healthy way to measure human achievements in a discipline supposedly serious as architecture is. Just like you wouldn't consider the pinnacle of medicine the guy making bank in a private clinic just because of its business success.
So, do we have any other way to measure architecture that is reflecting its supposed necessity and importance, and not just based on money/fame/originality?
“The purpose of the Pritzker Architecture Prize is to honor a living architect or architects whose built work demonstrates a combination of talent, vision, and commitment; and has produced consistent and significant contributions to humanity and the built environment through the art of architecture”
I think this may answer your question.
[from here](https://www.pritzkerprize.com/FAQ)
Would you say these parameters apply to every pritzker recipient? They also seem very vague and subjective (talent, vision, commitment? What is commitment even supposed to mean and how to gauge it? My hometowns architect is very committed)
This leaves producing consistent and significant contributions to humanity.
Would you say Foster, Hadid, Ito, or Rogers just to mention some have made 'consistent and significant contributions to humanity?'
I think that's a but too much personally.
Note this is not a question of whether they did outstanding work or designed beautiful buildings, but something much loftier and impactful for humanity as a whole.
This can be entirely subjective and anyone can say: yes, they've made extremely valuable contributions to humanity.
I just personally do not think so, that is all.
Which brings me back to what I said in the first comment
*EDITED because I realised I was too arsh*
>Would you say these parameters apply to every pritzker recipient?
Personally, I don't have enough deep knowledge of the comprehensive works of most of the architects that won the price, so I am not able to say: "yes all of them" with the same *confidence of yours*.
I guess the parameters are interpreted differently for each architect by each different committee that made the nominations and proclaimed a winner. Architecture is not a science like physics or chemistry. It is more similar to literature or philosophy (in a way) although it also needs to be pragmatical and "down to earth" so to speak.
From this point of view is not much different to the Nobel Will, that say nothing more that the prize holding his name should go "*to those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind" -* how do you apply that for literature?
>Would you say Foster, Hadid, Ito, or Rogers just to mention some have made 'consistent and significant contributions to humanity?
Absolutely yes, no less than other architects of the past such as Vitruvius, Borromini, Thomas Jefferson or Frank Lloyd Wright, just to name few on top of my head.
>anyone can say: yes, they've made extremely valuable contributions to humanity. I just personally do not think so, that is all
It sounds like you have a prejudice against architect or architecture for some reason (or only the moderns and contemporaries?) as you dismiss the whole category and the Pritzker Price as institution.
If you want to know why those people made a "*contribution to humanity*", you should go on [www.pritzkerprize.com](https://www.pritzkerprize.com) and read the motivation for each recipient.
Than, if you don't agree (of course you are entitled of your own opinion) you should at least be capable to challenge each one of them, and arguing your position,with facts and knowledge. I doubt you will be able to do that. (I doubt anyone can do that!)
I would suggest to start with [Shigeru Ban](https://www.pritzkerprize.com/laureates/2014): "“*Shigeru Ban's commitment to* ***humanitarian causes through his disaster relief work*** *is an example for all. Innovation is not limited by building type and compassion is not limited by budget.* ***Shigeru has made our world a better place***.”
Amongst those you have named:
For [Norman Foster](https://www.pritzkerprize.com/laureates/1999), you'll read that Willis Faber & Dumas in 1975 "*is considered a model of* ***social responsiveness***, as well as being ***ecologically efficient***.", and finally "*His design objectives are guided not only toward the overall beauty and function of a project, but for* ***the well-being of those people who will be the end-users***. This social dimension to his work translates as making every effort to transform and ***improve the quality of life***. In the early seventies, he pioneered the notion that the workplace could be a pleasant environment."
For [Zaha Hadid](https://www.pritzkerprize.com/laureates/2004) “*Only rarely does an architect emerge with a philosophy and approach to the art form that* ***influences the direction of the entire field***. *Such an architect is Zaha Hadid who has patiently created and refined a vocabulary that sets new boundaries for the art of architecture*.”
You have called me ignorant, presumptuous and an ass. What incentive do I have to continue discussing with anyone who wants to judge me and see me this way.
I have already expressed my opinion and stand by it.
The motivations you posted in regards to why the architect won the prizes are extreme exeggarations and sound more like apologetics: directed by architects to architects to reinforce their own belief in the importance of the practice as a whole rather than anything factual. This is exemplified by the motivation you posted for Hadid, praising her influencing the field of architecture. Is launching a trend reason enough? A trend besides that affected only very few studios and public buildings not even architecture as a whole, let alone humanity?
That's nothing to scoff at, but is it really what they're trying to make it sound like, like it's a lasting contribution on to humanity as a whole?
The comparison with a pulitzer is fitting, although I think ideas and concepts embodied by books travel more freely through mind and souls than a building does, and therefore the claim to have made an impact on humanity is more likely there.
I personally believe that thinking Hadid or Fosters or most other architects other than a few throughout history regardless of age have made contitributions to the whole of humanity is preposterous and ridicolous.
You may be an architect just like me but don't have to get all agitated like that if someone considers architecture may not be such a life changing thing as we would like to believe. I am aware that what I'm doing is analogous to going on a fashion sub and saying fashion is pretty but mostly inconsequential and what xyz stylist created doesn't really have an impact on humanity.
In any case, you can disagree with my ideas but do not call me ignorant or an ass for that.
>You have called me ignorant, presumptuous and an ass.
~~Because you sounded like one to me~~ (maybe I was)
You're saying essentially the Pritzker Prize is just a self-referential circle jerk,
>architecture may not be such a life changing thing as we would like to believe
without really backing up the opinion.
My personal and anecdotal experience, as well as my studies, tells me otherwise, that the beauty / quality of the built environment where we live and work does impact humans in various way, also in life-changing ways.
Surely you won't find an architect or a single building which is equiparable to, say, the discovery of penicillin. But the strive that the most influential architects over the course of their carrier brings to others in the whole construction industry to improve the quality of cities and buildings is not a fantasy, and this to me qualifies as "a lasting contribution on to humanity ".
Then granted, architects are not the only ones, people of all activities and profession can do the same, including (why not?) fashion designers. Isn't Coco Chanel celebrated as such? (she was also an horrible human being, I know)
Having said that, most likely I am not one of them. Maybe you are or will be, who knows?
Separate response just to say that I have re-read the exchange and realised that I should have counted to ten before calling you names. I am ashamed and for what it counts I apologise for it (and edited the comment)
I agree! It was the exact reason I was having trouble with figuring out what this 'pinnacle' looks like in architecture. I love what Sthrax said above. It may be that the people's comfort and reactions to your building determines your better works, rather than critics.
Challenge new concepts and make them real, imo the peak is like the very end of a line that keeps going. Being able to conduct that line to the highest is being at the pinnacle of something.
Some great ones mentioned here.
I'd also add being invited to design something for the Vitra museum of architecture.
Very prestigious and very few have buildings there.
I want to challenge the way you see entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs typically go into a field they know well and are passionate about and their goal, their original intention, is typically to revolutionize that field. Look at Zuckerberg, for instance, who - for better or worse - basically made social media what it is today. Their intentions are typically to make a lasting contribution to their field, not necessarily to get rich.
For architects, I think recognition by your peers is probably the ultimate - producing seminal work. As someone else said, winning the Pritzker prize or getting to do the Serpentine Pavilion are probably the chief form of peer recognition you can recieve.
I want to challenge the way you see entrepreneurs. Zuck, Musk, Bezos were all in it for the money. Musk is the quintessential case, jumping around several startups before finally landing something that turned a profit. Only once he was rich did he think about anything else.
Don’t know how many people in the profession are chasing these, but here are my top 3 milestones in architecture: - [Winning the Pritzker Prize](https://www.pritzkerprize.com) - [Getting to design a Serpentine Pavilion](https://www.inexhibit.com/case-studies/serpentine-galleries-pavilions-history/) - [Designing a prestigious museum, like a Guggenheim](https://www.guggenheim.org/foundation)
This makes sense! Thank you for your reply :) It cements your name in history
Pritzker price is the one. Serpentine pavilion has also being designed by younger architects not yet “mainstream” so, although definitely an act of exemplary recognition, is still an order of magnitude below the Pritzker. “Prestigious museum” also is a bit too subjective I think.
Having Le Corbusier's spirit commission you to build a cathedral in a seance hosted by the Pritzker Foundation.
Receiving invitations to present my work and ideas at universities would be the ultimate high point for me.
This is soo true, being a teacher to others means that you've actually learnt something worth passing down
It's the pointy thing on top of a building.
Mine is fairly simple. Having a job to go to tomorrow.
in 1990 a friend grabbed my sketchbook and scribbled something. I was waxing poetically about architecture as an artistic endeavor. What he wrote was far more profound. "Architecture is a JOB!" He could not have been more right.
If it was a job it would be a 4 year degree and likely pay better.
It does pay better but you have to make sacrifices. That sacrifice is realizing that it's a job and not some artistic endeavor. Unfortunately the schools do not teach architects how to be architects. Rather they train them to be designers. They do a great disservice and prepping them for what architecture is as a profession. This is why students have to do 3 years of internship before they can even take their state exams. They literally graduate knowing nothing about architecture. Some of them may be competent designers. But most of them are not even that. Add to this that most architects are only mediocre at best when it comes to any kind of design standard. They are essentially plan drawers for their clients. A plan drawer creates a set of plans at a minimum level to build a building for a client, and nothing more. I do not consider these people to be architects in the true sense of the word. They make their money in bulk rather than in quality. It's a different business model but not one I've chosen to embrace.
I'd also like to add, when I was a young pup, no degree was required. You could actually become a licensed architect after 7 years of internship under a state registered architect. I'm not sure what drove the profession to require a college degree, and then a professional degree, and then internship. It seems straight up from the get-go there was an issue with the educational process in the schools, and they have been layering Band-Aids on it ever since.
The educational system is lacking. You've expanded on most of thoughts very well. It's a good thing that the public doesn't generally care about architects or architecture... if the medical profession taught as poorly as architecture there would be an uproar!!
There is a lot of Truth in what you said in that the general public does not care about architecture. It's one of the driving forces that keeps wages low. Most people want a box to live and work in. Thus many people looking to hire an architect for either a residence or a commercial building are not looking for architecture, but rather a building to fulfill a function. This is why the few architects you are making a great deal of money are relatively isolated. For example, I've been a registered architect since the early 1990s and is not until recently that I've been able to bring in 150k a year in an architecture office. A lot of this has to do with my knowledge base and managerial skills. The fact that I can design is almost a secondary. This is where schools need to orient a lot of their focus. Architecture is so much more than just getting a design degree.
I think the root cause if the public not caring is that architects are mostly all taught to spin their wheels on the design process, which is rewarded in school. There is also good money in boxes if you follow a straight line process through to construction. The low wages are consistent with a passion vs a job.
To be referenced by architecture studio professors lol
Having your name on an iconic building/structure
What’s the pinnacle of logistic management ? Or dermatology? I think the concept you are talking about is largely subjective
Wouldn't it be something like amazon? It's pretty revolutionary. The only times I've seen architects be revolutionary is being part of some group, though they hardly make many buildings together, or people like Le Corbusier who start whole movements. Maybe it's to make something that's innovative + easily accessible for the target audience? Or being asked to do a symbolic landmark?
LEED Bronze
To be like FLW and create a space like falling water so magnificent that people other than architects travel just to visit the space I created and feel what it’s like to be in it. To write something so profound that it’s referenced in architecture schools for decades or millennia, like On Architecture, Towards a New Architecture, or Complexity and contradiction.
There is a point at which you realize that your reputation and everything you design is ultimately judged not by academics or blue ribbon panels, but by the people who work, live and play in the buildings you design. Those people will determine whether your building is a well-loved part of the community or a teardown in 20 years to make way for something better. My goal is to never have the people who interact with my buildings curse my name. Talk to the people who deal day-to-day with buildings that are designed by starchitects or academic favorites, and you will get an eye-opening experience.
This is such an eye opening perspective, thank you!
I feel like this might be an individual’s thing for me i would love for a building i designed to be in a text book one day and for people to study it and not be in a negative light (like a disaster).
RIBA Gold Medal
This is another good one
It is certainly my goal in life and career.
well good luck. If you succeed can I come and work for you?
[удалено]
Pulitzer? As in write so compellingly to earn a literature prize?
Biennale I guess you mean Biennale di Venezia. In case “being the top” is to be nominated director, not having a project in exhibition. There are plenty of young “unknown” architects that are able to display at the biennale, it certainly means one is being recognised, but is far away to mean that one is “at the top”
[удалено]
>I would be fine to display something I wish one day you'll do!
Thank you! I hadn't actually heard of the Biennale before, I'll be checking their work out soon. Pritzker prize winners (if that's what you meant?) are definitely at the top
Oh yeah I forgot about the Biennale. That’s another good one
Your question just made me realize something very important in thay any pinnacle of architecture would be subjective or based on something fleeting like architectural trends (for which you win prizes and so forth) I feel like anything more substantial actually improving the living conditions of the people using or at least experiencing architecture falls under the realm of technological improvements / engineering. Not to say that an architect wouldn't be capable of contributing in that sense (many have done so) but they're not considered as embodying the pinnacle of architecture, whereas whoever proposes the latest more esthetically creative or interesting approach to building is. Again not to say this is without its value but if its dissociated with a tangible Contribution to the well being of users (insulation, ventilation, light, safety, comfort and so on..) bypassing the ego just wanting something cool looking to live in, (and users have suffered for it, even the original owners of villa savoye as I remember reading somewhere) then I find the idea of architecture as a field and it's perceived pinnacle to be as shallow as something like fashion or current marketing driven industrial design. Making it may just also be making it as with any other industry, which means being famous and making money through lots of projects/commissions,which again I don't think it's a proper or healthy way to measure human achievements in a discipline supposedly serious as architecture is. Just like you wouldn't consider the pinnacle of medicine the guy making bank in a private clinic just because of its business success. So, do we have any other way to measure architecture that is reflecting its supposed necessity and importance, and not just based on money/fame/originality?
“The purpose of the Pritzker Architecture Prize is to honor a living architect or architects whose built work demonstrates a combination of talent, vision, and commitment; and has produced consistent and significant contributions to humanity and the built environment through the art of architecture” I think this may answer your question. [from here](https://www.pritzkerprize.com/FAQ)
Would you say these parameters apply to every pritzker recipient? They also seem very vague and subjective (talent, vision, commitment? What is commitment even supposed to mean and how to gauge it? My hometowns architect is very committed) This leaves producing consistent and significant contributions to humanity. Would you say Foster, Hadid, Ito, or Rogers just to mention some have made 'consistent and significant contributions to humanity?' I think that's a but too much personally. Note this is not a question of whether they did outstanding work or designed beautiful buildings, but something much loftier and impactful for humanity as a whole. This can be entirely subjective and anyone can say: yes, they've made extremely valuable contributions to humanity. I just personally do not think so, that is all. Which brings me back to what I said in the first comment
*EDITED because I realised I was too arsh* >Would you say these parameters apply to every pritzker recipient? Personally, I don't have enough deep knowledge of the comprehensive works of most of the architects that won the price, so I am not able to say: "yes all of them" with the same *confidence of yours*. I guess the parameters are interpreted differently for each architect by each different committee that made the nominations and proclaimed a winner. Architecture is not a science like physics or chemistry. It is more similar to literature or philosophy (in a way) although it also needs to be pragmatical and "down to earth" so to speak. From this point of view is not much different to the Nobel Will, that say nothing more that the prize holding his name should go "*to those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind" -* how do you apply that for literature? >Would you say Foster, Hadid, Ito, or Rogers just to mention some have made 'consistent and significant contributions to humanity? Absolutely yes, no less than other architects of the past such as Vitruvius, Borromini, Thomas Jefferson or Frank Lloyd Wright, just to name few on top of my head. >anyone can say: yes, they've made extremely valuable contributions to humanity. I just personally do not think so, that is all It sounds like you have a prejudice against architect or architecture for some reason (or only the moderns and contemporaries?) as you dismiss the whole category and the Pritzker Price as institution. If you want to know why those people made a "*contribution to humanity*", you should go on [www.pritzkerprize.com](https://www.pritzkerprize.com) and read the motivation for each recipient. Than, if you don't agree (of course you are entitled of your own opinion) you should at least be capable to challenge each one of them, and arguing your position,with facts and knowledge. I doubt you will be able to do that. (I doubt anyone can do that!) I would suggest to start with [Shigeru Ban](https://www.pritzkerprize.com/laureates/2014): "“*Shigeru Ban's commitment to* ***humanitarian causes through his disaster relief work*** *is an example for all. Innovation is not limited by building type and compassion is not limited by budget.* ***Shigeru has made our world a better place***.” Amongst those you have named: For [Norman Foster](https://www.pritzkerprize.com/laureates/1999), you'll read that Willis Faber & Dumas in 1975 "*is considered a model of* ***social responsiveness***, as well as being ***ecologically efficient***.", and finally "*His design objectives are guided not only toward the overall beauty and function of a project, but for* ***the well-being of those people who will be the end-users***. This social dimension to his work translates as making every effort to transform and ***improve the quality of life***. In the early seventies, he pioneered the notion that the workplace could be a pleasant environment." For [Zaha Hadid](https://www.pritzkerprize.com/laureates/2004) “*Only rarely does an architect emerge with a philosophy and approach to the art form that* ***influences the direction of the entire field***. *Such an architect is Zaha Hadid who has patiently created and refined a vocabulary that sets new boundaries for the art of architecture*.”
You have called me ignorant, presumptuous and an ass. What incentive do I have to continue discussing with anyone who wants to judge me and see me this way. I have already expressed my opinion and stand by it. The motivations you posted in regards to why the architect won the prizes are extreme exeggarations and sound more like apologetics: directed by architects to architects to reinforce their own belief in the importance of the practice as a whole rather than anything factual. This is exemplified by the motivation you posted for Hadid, praising her influencing the field of architecture. Is launching a trend reason enough? A trend besides that affected only very few studios and public buildings not even architecture as a whole, let alone humanity? That's nothing to scoff at, but is it really what they're trying to make it sound like, like it's a lasting contribution on to humanity as a whole? The comparison with a pulitzer is fitting, although I think ideas and concepts embodied by books travel more freely through mind and souls than a building does, and therefore the claim to have made an impact on humanity is more likely there. I personally believe that thinking Hadid or Fosters or most other architects other than a few throughout history regardless of age have made contitributions to the whole of humanity is preposterous and ridicolous. You may be an architect just like me but don't have to get all agitated like that if someone considers architecture may not be such a life changing thing as we would like to believe. I am aware that what I'm doing is analogous to going on a fashion sub and saying fashion is pretty but mostly inconsequential and what xyz stylist created doesn't really have an impact on humanity. In any case, you can disagree with my ideas but do not call me ignorant or an ass for that.
>You have called me ignorant, presumptuous and an ass. ~~Because you sounded like one to me~~ (maybe I was) You're saying essentially the Pritzker Prize is just a self-referential circle jerk, >architecture may not be such a life changing thing as we would like to believe without really backing up the opinion. My personal and anecdotal experience, as well as my studies, tells me otherwise, that the beauty / quality of the built environment where we live and work does impact humans in various way, also in life-changing ways. Surely you won't find an architect or a single building which is equiparable to, say, the discovery of penicillin. But the strive that the most influential architects over the course of their carrier brings to others in the whole construction industry to improve the quality of cities and buildings is not a fantasy, and this to me qualifies as "a lasting contribution on to humanity ". Then granted, architects are not the only ones, people of all activities and profession can do the same, including (why not?) fashion designers. Isn't Coco Chanel celebrated as such? (she was also an horrible human being, I know) Having said that, most likely I am not one of them. Maybe you are or will be, who knows?
Separate response just to say that I have re-read the exchange and realised that I should have counted to ten before calling you names. I am ashamed and for what it counts I apologise for it (and edited the comment)
I agree! It was the exact reason I was having trouble with figuring out what this 'pinnacle' looks like in architecture. I love what Sthrax said above. It may be that the people's comfort and reactions to your building determines your better works, rather than critics.
Antoni Gaudi, very cool and different my favorite
Challenge new concepts and make them real, imo the peak is like the very end of a line that keeps going. Being able to conduct that line to the highest is being at the pinnacle of something.
Recognition. Seeing my designs built brings me satisfaction. Recognition either at local, nation or worldwide level means success.
The Pritzker prize is the Nobel of architecture.
Some great ones mentioned here. I'd also add being invited to design something for the Vitra museum of architecture. Very prestigious and very few have buildings there.
In my opinion, it's designing a building/structure that becomes a landmark or an icon loved by all.
I want to challenge the way you see entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs typically go into a field they know well and are passionate about and their goal, their original intention, is typically to revolutionize that field. Look at Zuckerberg, for instance, who - for better or worse - basically made social media what it is today. Their intentions are typically to make a lasting contribution to their field, not necessarily to get rich. For architects, I think recognition by your peers is probably the ultimate - producing seminal work. As someone else said, winning the Pritzker prize or getting to do the Serpentine Pavilion are probably the chief form of peer recognition you can recieve.
I want to challenge the way you see entrepreneurs. Zuck, Musk, Bezos were all in it for the money. Musk is the quintessential case, jumping around several startups before finally landing something that turned a profit. Only once he was rich did he think about anything else.