Sybil Walker Barnes asks for a "provocative or thought-provoking" promotional sound bite to put on Facebook... and here we go burdening her with the Truth.
To me "Why does design matter?" sounds dispiritingly needy, as in "Now that I finally got the rezoning and saved a bundle on one less fire stair and value-engineered away the bookcases I liked and found locally-made bike racks for LEED, am I really the only one who cares whether the windows line up?" Why design matters is in fact less an architect's question than a social question, one that architects understand differently in their own place and time. Sullivan and Wright, for instance, predicted that in a future America practical and aesthetic choices would merge, and placemaking would become as earth-friendly as organic farming. Design would matter as an expression of democracy. Coming back today, they would be disappointed to find middle Americans who still define practical as the lowest cost legal option, and regard creativity with suspicion. But the fast food outlets, where meticulous design matters because it works to sell product and control operating costs, might intrigue them.
As for today's hopes for holistic design, who doesn't understand David Hauseman's pain at seeing a socially and environmentally conscientious, economical, habitable, attractive building passed over for design honors in favor of a stunning white elephant? (To be sure the AIA isn't the only sponsor of beauty-contest design awards, and they balance them with those revival-meeting convention sessions that warn us to burn our design vanities and embrace zero-carbon/BIM/sustainability/integrated practice/social responsibility/design-build/traditional neighborhood design, or die.) Inconveniently, many people enjoy following starchitects and "great" individual buildings-for architects, no doubt, it's a way to feel superior to our building industry competitors. In truth great buildings have broken practicality rules for centuries, so that for every Palladian villa that suavely integrates cow barns and threshing floors, there's an unfinishable Beauvais Cathedral or an uninhabitable Farnsworth House. And much as I'd like to see exceptions, great buildings still normally require sophisticated, determined clients, permanent materials, and lots of money. Nevertheless, as David suggests we could try to do better.
For an organization seeking to start a broad conversation on the importance of design and the roles of architects, however, I'd suggest less focus on great buildings and more on good places. Large, small, public or private, indoor or outdoor, places are what people inhabit and care about, and places are where design matters most. (An example would be Paris, France, where I've just been, which has at most two great buildings but hundreds of great places, and is widely considered the most beautiful city in the world.) A useful conversation would include landscape architects, planners, interior designers and other collaborators, since no one believes architects make these things by themselves.
Even better would be to start by soliciting videos not from architects, but from people who know and use their well-known places, such as building owners, tenants and other residents, frequent users and tourists. Ask them what about a place matters to them. I have no doubt it will often be some aspect of an architect's design-although not necessarily the one we expect.
-------------------------------------------
Robert L. Miller FAIA
Robert L. Miller Associates
Washington DC
-------------------------------------------