The Negotiator or Mad Man?

I found DeCarlo’s discussion on ‘how’ and ‘why’ very interesting when it comes to politics in design. As an architect many would say it is our duty to serve our client, and to design for their needs. But as we all know there comes a point in post corporate offices where the architect has to step up and negotiate with the client to push them in a ‘better’ direction whether it’s a large design decision or simply paint color. As the trained professional, clients tend to agree with the designer and ‘trust’ that they know what is best. I am wondering how often architects/designers abuse this power to fulfill some other political alternative? How often are clients blind to the ‘why’ that the designer is pushing on them and instill their trust that they are doing the right thing?

When I think about starchitects and some of the ‘wild’ post-modern buildings that have popped up over the years I think about the impacts they have on the surrounding communities. I wonder if the architects pitching these design ideas ever proposed that “this sweeping roof line will make the users happier” (for lack of a better example). And if they said this but were actually on a board that has been pushing to add more contemporary architecture to the city and worded it this way to the client to make the project seem community-centered knowing the client would buy the idea - quicker. Of course this may have never happened to any building around the globe but I don't think that's the case. 

If architects, and the ambiguous title they hold, are trusted by all to make the right decisions how can clients make sure they are getting the truth? How can they make sure they are hiring/agreeing to a design that will truly benefit a community and has truth to the project’s “why”? How can they know that the negotiation they are facing is coming to them with good intentions - not just more false advertisements?