Committee on Design

Should it really be called the Committee on Excellence?  Or maybe the Committee on Style?

Throughout the AIA, there is an attempt to make sure that the Knowledge Communities (KC's) are providing as much value as possible to as many members as possible.  For the most part, value in this case has been defined as Knowledge.  So, the Committee on Design (COD) needs to be conveying as much knowledge as possible to as many members as possible.  Amongst the KC's, presumably, there is a subset of architectural knowledge about which the COD knows the most.  That is the knowledge COD should be conveying. 

 

What is that knowledge?

 

The COD was founded to promote design excellence.  What knowledge of value can the COD provide to AIA members about design excellence?  What it is?  How to achieve it?  How to recognize it?

 

One more time, if all of the other KC's are conveying knowledge related to their niches, what should the COD be conveying?

-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA
mmenseArchitect
Anchorage AK
2012 Chair of the Committee on Design

-------------------------------------------

Knowledge about design remains, to this day, largely unstated; certainly unquantified. Design excellence consists of vague issues of consensus regarding design excellence at a given point in time. "We know it when we see it." There is certainly excellent modernist design to be discerned, just as there is excellent historicist design (though the latter remains disdained by the large bulk of the profession and the academy). The same is the case with bad modernism and bad historicism, which of course comprise the large bulk of what gets built, if I may be so rude as to say so. In general, we are not artists on a large scale, nor are we intellectuals, despite the fact that many architects would dearly love to be so considered. A paucity of specific critical analysis of built form remains the largest barrier to informed aesthetic decision making with respect to architecture and urbanism.

-------------------------------------------
Kenneth Moffett AIA
Bullock Smith & Partners
Knoxville TN
-------------------------------------------

Kenneth Yes, you hit at least one of the nails right on the head. Our task is to try to get beyond what you describe. Can you please try to list a few things that help you to recognize it when you see it? ------------------------------------------- Mike Mense FAIA Anchorage AK -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 05-25-2011 11:19 From: Kenneth Moffett Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin Knowledge about design remains, to this day, largely unstated; certainly unquantified. Design excellence consists of vague issues of consensus regarding design excellence at a given point in time. "We know it when we see it." There is certainly excellent modernist design to be discerned, just as there is excellent historicist design (though the latter remains disdained by the large bulk of the profession and the academy). The same is the case with bad modernism and bad historicism, which of course comprise the large bulk of what gets built, if I may be so rude as to say so. In general, we are not artists on a large scale, nor are we intellectuals, despite the fact that many architects would dearly love to be so considered. A paucity of specific critical analysis of built form remains the largest barrier to informed aesthetic decision making with respect to architecture and urbanism. ------------------------------------------- Kenneth Moffett AIA Bullock Smith & Partners Knoxville TN -------------------------------------------

Mike:

Names are meaningless to me.  Actions are more valuable. KCs also create great value in being the voice of the profession in their area of expertise.  The COD should be as much about communicating the value of architecture to the public as it is about developing knowledge about design to its members.  So here are some things I would like to see COD engage in:

• Develop a national policy on design and advocate for its adoption.  This is something many countries, especially in Europe, have, but the US does not.  It is something that a number of publications are looking for us to do.
• Work with others, such as Target and Virgin, to communicate that value of good design to the public.
• Develop an annual survey about design trends in the industry.
• Leverage our awards programs better, not just at the national level, but including the 300 components, most of whom have award programe.  Interview clients about how these outstanding designs have improved their lives and solved their problems. Is the building performing as expected? Talk to contractors about what the architects did right and what they believe should be improved.  Interview the design team about how they approached the problem and how it was sold.
• Make your programs available to more members remotely.  I know you believe your experiential programs like is coming up in Seattle are available to all your members, but from comments we have heard in the past, members do not realize this.  That's a communication problem, but it also might be that the programs are not being delivered the way members want to access them.
• Connect the Committees on Design that exist in our components.  Share information, agendas, and experiences.  Give them tools to deliver knowledge to their members.

Mike, you know me well enough that you can call on me to help in any way. 

-------------------------------------------
Walter Hainsfurther FAIA
Kurtz Associates Architects
Des Plaines IL
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 05-25-2011 14:16
From: Mike Mense
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Kenneth
Yes, you hit at least one of the nails right on the head. Our task is to try to get beyond what you describe. Can you please try to list a few things that help you to recognize it when you see it?
-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA
Anchorage AK
-------------------------------------------

Walter Thanks for your thoughts. I don't think I am alone in being able to cheer harder when I know what I am cheering about. I hope when you said you don't care about names, you didn't mean the same about words. To the point, though, either through drawings, pictures or words, can you explain the value of architecture? Does that value increase in proportion to the excellence of the architecture? I think it's ok for lay people to operate on a "know it when I see it" basis. I don't think that's an adequate basis for the practice of architecture. ------------------------------------------- Mike Mense FAIA -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 05-26-2011 07:57 From: Walter Hainsfurther Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin Mike: Names are meaningless to me. Actions are more valuable. KCs also create great value in being the voice of the profession in their area of expertise. The COD should be as much about communicating the value of architecture to the public as it is about developing knowledge about design to its members. So here are some things I would like to see COD engage in: Develop a national policy on design and advocate for its adoption. This is something many countries, especially in Europe, have, but the US does not. It is something that a number of publications are looking for us to do. Work with others, such as Target and Virgin, to communicate that value of good design to the public. Develop an annual survey about design trends in the industry. Leverage our awards programs better, not just at the national level, but including the 300 components, most of whom have award programe. Interview clients about how these outstanding designs have improved their lives and solved their problems. Is the building performing as expected? Talk to contractors about what the architects did right and what they believe should be improved. Interview the design team about how they approached the problem and how it was sold. Make your programs available to more members remotely. I know you believe your experiential programs like is coming up in Seattle are available to all your members, but from comments we have heard in the past, members do not realize this. That's a communication problem, but it also might be that the programs are not being delivered the way members want to access them. Connect the Committees on Design that exist in our components. Share information, agendas, and experiences. Give them tools to deliver knowledge to their members. Mike, you know me well enough that you can call on me to help in any way. ------------------------------------------- Walter Hainsfurther FAIA Kurtz Associates Architects Des Plaines IL -------------------------------------------

Mike,

Stephen
Right On!  At COD, we have an Honors and Awards Coordinator.  I will make sure he sees this and see if he can figure out a way for us to work on this.  I trust you understand that we already spend a large amount of volunteer energy submitting the various nominations, but maybe we can expand our team and make some progress.  I have also recently been reading some documents authored by Barton Phelps FAIA on these subjects.  Maybe we could hook him into this.
-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA


Original Message:
Sent: 05-27-2011 12:02
From: Stephen Loos
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Mike,

I think you have asked some important questions, and our good friend, Walter, has started you on the path to some significant answers.  I'd like to build on Walter's comments with a few thoughts.

First, to me, the primary objective of our knowledge agenda must be the enhancement of the credibility of our architect members.  By that I mean that we must use knowledge to further strengthen the understanding of and demand for architectural services - what we bring to the party as an integral component of the team charged with creating the built environment.

To that end, I believe the COD could have a very beneficial discussion about our awards programs at every level of the Institute.  I don't believe the general public is well enough versed in design excellence to be able to consistently "know it when they see it."  To often, awards are given at local and national levels with very little accompanying information about why these projects were truly worthy of awards.  About the only thing the public sees are the beautiful photographs which translate, in their minds, as equating awards with nothing morer than aesthetics and great photography.  

i would encourage COD's contribution to the knowledge agenda to be a "fleshing out" of the rationale for receipt of design awards - establishing clear, comprehensive criteria for award designations, and helping to make sure that more of the reasoning behind the award's relevance and merit makes it to the published commentaries.  I can't tell you how often I have been frustrated by the published results providing so little insight into the real merits of the projects being recognized.  

I believe that this greater depth of documentation would go a long way to alleviating some of the public's preconceptions about design being all about aesthetics and ego satisfaction.

As with Walter, I would welcome the opportunity to help move this discussion forward.

-------------------------------------------
Stephen Loos FAIA
Principal
The Mulhern Group Ltd.
Lyons CO
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-26-2011 14:05
From: Mike Mense
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Walter
Thanks for your thoughts. I don't think I am alone in being able to cheer harder when I know what I am cheering about. I hope when you said you don't care about names, you didn't mean the same about words. To the point, though, either through drawings, pictures or words, can you explain the value of architecture? Does that value increase in proportion to the excellence of the architecture? I think it's ok for lay people to operate on a "know it when I see it" basis. I don't think that's an adequate basis for the practice of architecture.
-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA
-------------------------------------------

1) "... a national policy on design," what does that mean? Can you give a specific example of a national policy in one of those European countries?
2) Why would publications (and which ones) look for us to advocate for a national policy on design?
-------------------------------------------
David Clarke AIA, Senior Architect
Williams Design Group, Inc.
President-Elect, AIA New Mexico Southern Chapter
Las Cruces NM

Original Message:
Sent: 05-26-2011 07:57
From: Walter Hainsfurther
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Mike:

Names are meaningless to me.  Actions are more valuable. KCs also create great value in being the voice of the profession in their area of expertise.  The COD should be as much about communicating the value of architecture to the public as it is about developing knowledge about design to its members.  So here are some things I would like to see COD engage in:

• Develop a national policy on design and advocate for its adoption.  This is something many countries, especially in Europe, have, but the US does not.  It is something that a number of publications are looking for us to do.
• Work with others, such as Target and Virgin, to communicate that value of good design to the public.
• Develop an annual survey about design trends in the industry.
• Leverage our awards programs better, not just at the national level, but including the 300 components, most of whom have award programe.  Interview clients about how these outstanding designs have improved their lives and solved their problems. Is the building performing as expected? Talk to contractors about what the architects did right and what they believe should be improved.  Interview the design team about how they approached the problem and how it was sold.
• Make your programs available to more members remotely.  I know you believe your experiential programs like is coming up in Seattle are available to all your members, but from comments we have heard in the past, members do not realize this.  That's a communication problem, but it also might be that the programs are not being delivered the way members want to access them.
• Connect the Committees on Design that exist in our components.  Share information, agendas, and experiences.  Give them tools to deliver knowledge to their members.

Mike, you know me well enough that you can call on me to help in any way. 

-------------------------------------------
Walter Hainsfurther FAIA
Kurtz Associates Architects
Des Plaines IL
-------------------------------------------

David
Great questions!
Walter? (Hainsfurther, that is, but, of course, if anyone else has ideas about these questions, that's great too!)

-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA
Owner
mmenseArchitect
Anchorage AK


Original Message:
Sent: 05-27-2011 10:06
From: David Clarke
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

1) "... a national policy on design," what does that mean? Can you give a specific example of a national policy in one of those European countries?
2) Why would publications (and which ones) look for us to advocate for a national policy on design?
-------------------------------------------
David Clarke AIA, Senior Architect
Williams Design Group, Inc.
President-Elect, AIA New Mexico Southern Chapter
Las Cruces NM

Vitruvius said "Commodity Firmness and Delight" but it seems that with some exceptions there is more emphasis in Delight than the other two.
-------------------------------------------
Gisela Schmidt
---------------------------

Are you suggesting that we should judge excellence in architectural design based on the extent of it's commodity, firmness and delight? If so, maybe we should be showing people how to recognize, and/or achieve C,F&D? Any ideas about how to do that? ------------------------------------------- Mike Mense FAIA -------------------------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 05-25-2011 12:37 From: Gisela Schmidt Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin Vitruvius said "Commodity Firmness and Delight" but it seems that with some exceptions there is more emphasis in Delight than the other two. ------------------------------------------- Gisela Schmidt ---------------------------
Original Message: Sent: 05-24-2011 13:06 From: Mike Mense Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin Should it really be called the Committee on Excellence? Or maybe the Committee on Style? Throughout the AIA, there is an attempt to make sure that the Knowledge Communities (KC's) are providing as much value as possible to as many members as possible. For the most part, value in this case has been defined as Knowledge. So, the Committee on Design (COD) needs to be conveying as much knowledge as possible to as many members as possible. Amongst the KC's, presumably, there is a subset of architectural knowledge about which the COD knows the most. That is the knowledge COD should be conveying. What is that knowledge? The COD was founded to promote design excellence. What knowledge of value can the COD provide to AIA members about design excellence? What it is? How to achieve it? How to recognize it? One more time, if all of the other KC's are conveying knowledge related to their niches, what should the COD be conveying? ------------------------------------------- Mike Mense FAIA mmenseArchitect Anchorage AK 2012 Chair of the Committee on Design -------------------------------------------

COD exists because AIA needed a committee that's not on a "niche" concern.
We've promoted Commodity, Firmness, and  Delight through our crucial involvement in awards program (nominating, assembling juries) and our conferences (extraordinary learning opportunities).
Is there some way we can distributed enlightening reports on our conferences. (If we're doing that now, here's one members whose not seeing them.)
Do the AIA pages now available in Architecture magazine offer an opportunity to share what we learn at our conferences?
-------------------------------------------
John Dixon FAIA
Old Greenwich CT
-------------------------------------------

That's the problem in a nutshell, Mike. Design is based on opinion and fine art with a little guidance from the building and zoning codes. A lot of our knowledge is borrowed from engineering. There is a way to build design knowledge relevant to architecture and the public interest, but it requires a departure from the pattern languages of the past. I hesitate to mention this since it could be interpreted as self-serving, but you may be interested in visiting my blog for another perspective. Design is an issue that will affect our sustainable future, but it needs a new explanation and convincing justification that is based on the knowledge it can assemble. This is the only way to empower the advice it seeks to offer, in my opinion. See: "Cities and Design" at http://wmhosack.blogspot.com

-------------------------------------------
Walter Hosack
Author
Walter M. Hosack
Dublin OH
-------------------------------------------

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Residential Knowledge Community and Committee on Design .
-------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------
Michael Ytterberg AIA
Principal
BLT Architects
Philadelphia PA
-------------------------------------------

Names are meaningless only when there is no meaning. Those who deny meanings typically are seeking to deny the unspoken value system that motivates their actions.

And though Mr. Hosack is quite right to insist that many more of the decisions concerning the built environment
could profit by a rigorous mathematical basis, that approach, too, will never escape the issue of value.

I am always heartened to know that there are many architects out there like the gentleman who responded the other day, Mr. Moffett, who accepted a plurality of styles as a given in contemporary society. He was right on target with his suggestions.

As long as architects are governed primarily by ideology (and modernism has always been, and is acknowledged to be, an ideology), the public will never accept the profession as being primarily motivated by the interests of society as opposed to interests that are self-serving. Good health is obvious to all - doctors do not have to educate the public on the virtues of good health, only how to get there.  Winning a law suit has its own universal value - lawyers educate, again, on how to get there or avoid them. "Good design" that isn't based on the values of those it seeks to serve is meaningless.

We can accept the human condition as the grounds for study on how to serve society, or we can stay focused on the head of a pin.

Michael
Great closing sentence.  You will see that one quoted somewhere, I promise!  I think I understand your analogies to medicine and law.  I also think there is a fair amount of consensus on the "values" that are used to judge success in those fields.  I am much less clear on architecture's values.  Can you describe some of the specific values that we should be using to recognize architectural design excellence?

-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA


Original Message:
Sent: 05-27-2011 08:25
From: Michael Ytterberg
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Residential Knowledge Community and Committee on Design .
-------------------------------------------


-------------------------------------------
Michael Ytterberg AIA
Principal
BLT Architects
Philadelphia PA
-------------------------------------------

Names are meaningless only when there is no meaning. Those who deny meanings typically are seeking to deny the unspoken value system that motivates their actions.

And though Mr. Hosack is quite right to insist that many more of the decisions concerning the built environment
could profit by a rigorous mathematical basis, that approach, too, will never escape the issue of value.

I am always heartened to know that there are many architects out there like the gentleman who responded the other day, Mr. Moffett, who accepted a plurality of styles as a given in contemporary society. He was right on target with his suggestions.

As long as architects are governed primarily by ideology (and modernism has always been, and is acknowledged to be, an ideology), the public will never accept the profession as being primarily motivated by the interests of society as opposed to interests that are self-serving. Good health is obvious to all - doctors do not have to educate the public on the virtues of good health, only how to get there.  Winning a law suit has its own universal value - lawyers educate, again, on how to get there or avoid them. "Good design" that isn't based on the values of those it seeks to serve is meaningless.

We can accept the human condition as the grounds for study on how to serve society, or we can stay focused on the head of a pin.

Mike,
The issue of value is one I struggled with throughout my career. The return has to be considered worth the expense and I don't think we've won the argument in the mind the public. Attorneys haven't won the argument either, but they control the process. I think the argument to mandate a seal for every building project represents a subconscious desire to emulate their methods, but the public takes the safety of buildings for granted. It's a testament to the success of the effort, but a weak foundation for the profession.

I think I'm reading that your correspondents want the public to be convinced that the goal of the profession has value that is worth the expense. Given human nature, they may never agree that it's worth the expense; but let me suggest a goal that may be considered to have value beyond the special interest of a client.

'To provide shelter, pavement and open space for human activity within natural limits that protect the survival of all life with digity"

Architects cannot achieve this goal alone, but they can lead and/or participate with the right tools and language. Architects have always led teams, but they have not always appreciated the leadership skills they take for granted. 

-------------------------------------------
Walter Hosack
Author
Walter M. Hosack
Dublin OH
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-27-2011 14:17
From: Mike Mense
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Michael
Great closing sentence.  You will see that one quoted somewhere, I promise!  I think I understand your analogies to medicine and law.  I also think there is a fair amount of consensus on the "values" that are used to judge success in those fields.  I am much less clear on architecture's values.  Can you describe some of the specific values that we should be using to recognize architectural design excellence?

-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA

Eugene Ely, please send your message by replying to the discussion forum so everyone can see it.
Also, I hope I am not being the kind of dominator that ruins things.  I am trying at least at the beginning to respond to everyone's comments in hopes that they will engage further.  As time goes on, I hope, everyone will be questioning everyone and my role will recede.
-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA







Original Message:
Sent: 05-28-2011 12:22
From: Walter Hosack
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Mike,
The issue of value is one I struggled with throughout my career. The return has to be considered worth the expense and I don't think we've won the argument in the mind the public. Attorneys haven't won the argument either, but they control the process. I think the argument to mandate a seal for every building project represents a subconscious desire to emulate their methods, but the public takes the safety of buildings for granted. It's a testament to the success of the effort, but a weak foundation for the profession.

I think I'm reading that your correspondents want the public to be convinced that the goal of the profession has value that is worth the expense. Given human nature, they may never agree that it's worth the expense; but let me suggest a goal that may be considered to have value beyond the special interest of a client.

'To provide shelter, pavement and open space for human activity within natural limits that protect the survival of all life with digity"

Architects cannot achieve this goal alone, but they can lead and/or participate with the right tools and language. Architects have always led teams, but they have not always appreciated the leadership skills they take for granted. 

-------------------------------------------
Walter Hosack
Author
Walter M. Hosack
Dublin OH
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-27-2011 14:17
From: Mike Mense
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Michael
Great closing sentence.  You will see that one quoted somewhere, I promise!  I think I understand your analogies to medicine and law.  I also think there is a fair amount of consensus on the "values" that are used to judge success in those fields.  I am much less clear on architecture's values.  Can you describe some of the specific values that we should be using to recognize architectural design excellence?

-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA

Creating value has been an illusive subject for our profession. How do we provide value, what differentiates us from the myriad of "allied professionals" that have eroded the identity and role of the architect, particularly in respect to design?

 

All too often the focus is placed at the pinnacle of the profession, "starchitects" or whatever trend setting firm currently in the spotlight, that they are out of touch and marginalize the profession by being irrelevant and out of touch.  Forget debating Liebskin or whether Gehry's latest is a retread, in that rarified air value takes on a whole different meaning. What is the "value" of art? That is the measure of value at that level, and if they didn't bring value they would not be as successful as they are. Debate ideology and stylistic issues all you like, the market has spoken.

 

If we want to restore value to what we do as architects, as related to design, we shouldn't be focused on the top, but the bottom. If you want to increase the value of architects through what we do, it should be by raising the bar. Instead focus on the fact that the architect up the street erected an absolute atrocity of a building that is an embarrassment to the profession. Focus on the architect that slaps yet another site adapted rubberstamped discount pharmacy on a site just cleared of a historic building. Or errecting cheap and out of scale structures to maximize the profits of a developer to the detriment of the context and community. There are many poorly designed below average buildings that corrode the fabric of our environment that are designed by architects. That's where we can establish value. We tend to turn a blind eye, yet most all commercial buildings and the fabric of our cities are designed by us in some way or another. We excuse this, but when homebuilders and contractors provide as good or better design "value" than architects, the line becomes blurred and there is no apparent value.

 

And before you say we can't do anything about it, we do control the AIA. Just about every architectural school requires a CV and portfolio of work as a requisite for acceptance; shouldn't the quality of your work be criteria for being an AIA member? Make it mean something to hire an architect, better yet an AIA member.

-------------------------------------------
James Richard AIA
Principal
Richard & Bauer Architecture LLC
Phoenix AZ
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 05-28-2011 12:22
From: Walter Hosack
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Mike,
The issue of value is one I struggled with throughout my career. The return has to be considered worth the expense and I don't think we've won the argument in the mind the public. Attorneys haven't won the argument either, but they control the process. I think the argument to mandate a seal for every building project represents a subconscious desire to emulate their methods, but the public takes the safety of buildings for granted. It's a testament to the success of the effort, but a weak foundation for the profession.

I think I'm reading that your correspondents want the public to be convinced that the goal of the profession has value that is worth the expense. Given human nature, they may never agree that it's worth the expense; but let me suggest a goal that may be considered to have value beyond the special interest of a client.

'To provide shelter, pavement and open space for human activity within natural limits that protect the survival of all life with digity"

Architects cannot achieve this goal alone, but they can lead and/or participate with the right tools and language. Architects have always led teams, but they have not always appreciated the leadership skills they take for granted. 

-------------------------------------------
Walter Hosack
Author
Walter M. Hosack
Dublin OH
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-27-2011 14:17
From: Mike Mense
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Michael
Great closing sentence.  You will see that one quoted somewhere, I promise!  I think I understand your analogies to medicine and law.  I also think there is a fair amount of consensus on the "values" that are used to judge success in those fields.  I am much less clear on architecture's values.  Can you describe some of the specific values that we should be using to recognize architectural design excellence?

-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA

If we are talking about design, and this is the Committee on Design, then I would argue that the value of any artistic skill lies in the quality and respect one has for artistic education - a unique priveledge that the COD can provide leadership for. I believe most top designers would probably agree that artistic education is extremely undervalued by our society, as well as by most underskilled architects. I would propose that extremely few architects would even know how to converse at any advanced level, in terms of how to execute artistic issues within our profession. Heck, there are even some great designers who have trouble verbalizing what they do. This is not easy information to pass to around.

The ability to create requires innovation, uniqueness, and discovery. That can never be legislated nor regulated. The best we can do is peer review, by letting the very best in our profession judge and reward the newcomers to their level of skill. Promoting good design, talking about what it is, and how it's done, is the only path I know of to better design. As long as we keep talking about clients, society, values, economics, and ideology, we are still not talking about artistic execution of design. Nobody's artistic design skills are going to improve if we keep talking around design itself. No program nor building code is going to guide you to good art. If we want to keep denying the art of architecture, then you can bet the art won't be there.

Let's just assume we have a client who puts their complete trust in their architect (as many do). We know their needs and values. Great. Now what? Where does the great design skill come from? Too many architects, in my opinion, think that great design comes from great programming.  Then at the end, they quickly decorate their program, treating the artistic skills of our profession with very little respect. This also fools the client, because clients love programming - because it's done in their language, so naturally they fall for it's allure. But the product fails artistically in the end because the architect has turned everything we do into an objective science.

To quote Frank G himself:
"I think a lot of my collegues lost it, lose that relevance in the spirite of seriving their client, so that no matter what, they are serving their client. Even if the building they produce, that they think serves the client, doesn't really serve the client because it's not very good."

If the design skills are not there, then all those other arguments about what the client thinks suddenly evaportate.

-------------------------------------------
Rich Farris AIA
Dallas TX
-------------------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 05-30-2011 01:15
From: James Richard
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Creating value has been an illusive subject for our profession. How do we provide value, what differentiates us from the myriad of "allied professionals" that have eroded the identity and role of the architect, particularly in respect to design?

 

All too often the focus is placed at the pinnacle of the profession, "starchitects" or whatever trend setting firm currently in the spotlight, that they are out of touch and marginalize the profession by being irrelevant and out of touch.  Forget debating Liebskin or whether Gehry's latest is a retread, in that rarified air value takes on a whole different meaning. What is the "value" of art? That is the measure of value at that level, and if they didn't bring value they would not be as successful as they are. Debate ideology and stylistic issues all you like, the market has spoken.

 

If we want to restore value to what we do as architects, as related to design, we shouldn't be focused on the top, but the bottom. If you want to increase the value of architects through what we do, it should be by raising the bar. Instead focus on the fact that the architect up the street erected an absolute atrocity of a building that is an embarrassment to the profession. Focus on the architect that slaps yet another site adapted rubberstamped discount pharmacy on a site just cleared of a historic building. Or errecting cheap and out of scale structures to maximize the profits of a developer to the detriment of the context and community. There are many poorly designed below average buildings that corrode the fabric of our environment that are designed by architects. That's where we can establish value. We tend to turn a blind eye, yet most all commercial buildings and the fabric of our cities are designed by us in some way or another. We excuse this, but when homebuilders and contractors provide as good or better design "value" than architects, the line becomes blurred and there is no apparent value.

 

And before you say we can't do anything about it, we do control the AIA. Just about every architectural school requires a CV and portfolio of work as a requisite for acceptance; shouldn't the quality of your work be criteria for being an AIA member? Make it mean something to hire an architect, better yet an AIA member.

-------------------------------------------
James Richard AIA
Principal
Richard & Bauer Architecture LLC
Phoenix AZ
-------------------------------------------

Great design and the skill for it comes from an inner passion that we see in all fo fine art.  It is not Ego-driven, nor ever successful when grandiose.  It is heart-felt (even when highly intellectual such as the Barcelona Pavilion) and in memorable architecture: a marriage of successful programming, siting, proportion, context, use of materials, 3-D spatial and inter-disciplinary awareness, complex or even better yet clarified with simplicity.

A fine artist/architect puts all these ingredients together like the master chef, except our "meal" is a lot more expensive and permanent.  And yes, can even be done within a strict budget and rigorous client oversight.

-------------------------------------------
Steven Gottesman AIA
Senior Architect
URS Corporation
Sacramento CA
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 05-31-2011 09:58
From: William Farris
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

If we are talking about design, and this is the Committee on Design, then I would argue that the value of any artistic skill lies in the quality and respect one has for artistic education - a unique priveledge that the COD can provide leadership for. I believe most top designers would probably agree that artistic education is extremely undervalued by our society, as well as by most underskilled architects. I would propose that extremely few architects would even know how to converse at any advanced level, in terms of how to execute artistic issues within our profession. Heck, there are even some great designers who have trouble verbalizing what they do. This is not easy information to pass to around.

The ability to create requires innovation, uniqueness, and discovery. That can never be legislated nor regulated. The best we can do is peer review, by letting the very best in our profession judge and reward the newcomers to their level of skill. Promoting good design, talking about what it is, and how it's done, is the only path I know of to better design. As long as we keep talking about clients, society, values, economics, and ideology, we are still not talking about artistic execution of design. Nobody's artistic design skills are going to improve if we keep talking around design itself. No program nor building code is going to guide you to good art. If we want to keep denying the art of architecture, then you can bet the art won't be there.

Let's just assume we have a client who puts their complete trust in their architect (as many do). We know their needs and values. Great. Now what? Where does the great design skill come from? Too many architects, in my opinion, think that great design comes from great programming.  Then at the end, they quickly decorate their program, treating the artistic skills of our profession with very little respect. This also fools the client, because clients love programming - because it's done in their language, so naturally they fall for it's allure. But the product fails artistically in the end because the architect has turned everything we do into an objective science.

To quote Frank G himself:
"I think a lot of my collegues lost it, lose that relevance in the spirite of seriving their client, so that no matter what, they are serving their client. Even if the building they produce, that they think serves the client, doesn't really serve the client because it's not very good."

If the design skills are not there, then all those other arguments about what the client thinks suddenly evaportate.

-------------------------------------------
Rich Farris AIA
Dallas TX
-------------------------------------------

I am enjoying reading all the well thought posts on this great, relevant topic of design (haven't read them all yet).  In my exuberance, I wanted to mention Steven Gottesman's coments, in particular- those are quotable quotes, well said.  I may borrow them!

At a pool party today after our daughter's elementary school graduation, I met with several parents on a casual basis.  It turned out, one was a developer and another one was looking for an architect for one of her family member's proposed projects.  It was interesting to hear non-architects talking about architecture and get their unedited perception of what we do.  I will share more later.

Please excuse the intrusion...

Best regards, 

-------------------------------------------
Tara Imani AIA
Principal
Tara Imani Designs, LLC
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 06-01-2011 05:32
From: Steven Gottesman
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Great design and the skill for it comes from an inner passion that we see in all fo fine art.  It is not Ego-driven, nor ever successful when grandiose.  It is heart-felt (even when highly intellectual such as the Barcelona Pavilion) and in memorable architecture: a marriage of successful programming, siting, proportion, context, use of materials, 3-D spatial and inter-disciplinary awareness, complex or even better yet clarified with simplicity.

A fine artist/architect puts all these ingredients together like the master chef, except our "meal" is a lot more expensive and permanent.  And yes, can even be done within a strict budget and rigorous client oversight.

-------------------------------------------
Steven Gottesman AIA
Senior Architect
URS Corporation
Sacramento CA
-------------------------------------------

Response to Tara Imani, no apologies necessary, but next time, tell us how you recognize excellent design, ok?

Mike Mense FAIA


Original Message:
Sent: 06-02-2011 20:22
From: Tara Imani
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

I am enjoying reading all the well thought posts on this great, relevant topic of design (haven't read them all yet).  In my exuberance, I wanted to mention Steven Gottesman's coments, in particular- those are quotable quotes, well said.  I may borrow them!

At a pool party today after our daughter's elementary school graduation, I met with several parents on a casual basis.  It turned out, one was a developer and another one was looking for an architect for one of her family member's proposed projects.  It was interesting to hear non-architects talking about architecture and get their unedited perception of what we do.  I will share more later.

Please excuse the intrusion...

Best regards, 

-------------------------------------------
Tara Imani AIA
Principal
Tara Imani Designs, LLC
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------

In response to Mike Mense's question: "...but next time, tell us how you recognize excellent design, ok?", I will give a short response for now.  It's been years since I was in architecture school, so I've missed the critiques.  We have lost that- it seems- in our profession; the art of design is down-played as soon as we step out into the "real" world.  Maybe there are firms who've retained this studio atmosphere- yet, for the most part, the client's wants and budget are what seem to be the deciding factor on any given project's design.

So, how do I recognize excellent design?  To that, I say, I recognize excellent design when I see and/or experience it.  And, I strive for design excellence in my own projects.  Buildings look far different in reality than on paper.  An orthogonally laid out double-loaded corridor of offices may be expedient, but the plan that brings a dynamic force will end up engaging the end-user more.

As an end-user, I am most interested in things like good water pressure, cleanliness, spaciousness, plans that make sense as opposed to "maze-like" layouts, etc.  And there's the wow factor.  I experienced the wow factor when I attended the newly minted FAIA fellows convocation at the 2006 AIA Convention in Los Angeles, held at Frank Gehry's Disney Hall. It was a beautifully designed space.  I thought the lobby was too tight to enjoy and it felt a bit chopped up, not a place conducive to mingling...but the auditorium itself was beautifully done- the finish woodwork was amazing and I loved how he centered the organist in the middle of the back wall of the stage- almost "dangling" in mid-facade.

Excellent design in terms of city planning is very lacking these, imho- although there are good pockets of it throughout places I've visited throughout the U.S.  I recently visited Cleveland and was reminded why it's been called the demeaning term "mistake on the lake."  What a missed opportunity to use the waterfront in a better way.  Some improvement exists near the Science center and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, other than that, it is an eyesore. 

Yet, it's easy to be an armchair critic.  It's much different when you're the one solving the problems head-on.

Back to talking about architecture projects.  I recently had a prospective client contact me about designing a sports field and adjacent support facilities.  After hearing the client's vision, I was inspired to want to help raise funds and envisioned getting it LEED certified and using a type of "grass-crete" product as the parking lot.  Yet, nothing has come about due to insufficient budget, lack of foresight in purchasing a lot in a city that's requirements were more stringent than the client's budget could withstand.  The client wanted a simple plot of grass, some portable potties, and a gravel parking lot; the City, on the other hand, expected a paved lot with fully usable restroom facilities.  It's like the Jack Sprat riddle: "...and never the twain shall meet."

Again, proving the budget- in this case, lack of funding- dictates design.

Or, take a residential client who's stuck with a bummer of a house- a real rat-maze layout, horrible exterior massing translating into zero curb appeal, but the home-owner doesn't want to move.  Oh well, so much for any grand ideas or solutions by the architect.  If the client doesn't want to move, then no deal.

Again, proving that the basis of excellent design begins with a good, solid, serious benefactor- like the Medici family in Rome.

We need a Renaissance now!

Back to the topic of excellent design.  I think we can put the criteria for such into two categories: must haves and subjective qualities.  Must haves: firmness and commodity.  Subjective: delight. (To be clear, we MUST have beauty- however, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and in the hands of the one holding the wallet).  Must haves: LEED adherence or sustainable/green design, adherence to a reasonable budget, structural soundness, appropriate geometries of massing, space, (basically everything addressed in Francis Ching's book Form Space and Order).  Subjectives: this is the part I grapple with the most when dealing with commercial projects based on "standard" specs.  I tend to prefer natural stones, granite, marble, etc. and abhor linoleum, plastic laminate, and cheap-looking carpet (here, only talking finish materials).   

Overall, I recognize excellent design when it is well-executed.  I recently watched a documentary on the rebuilding of the Parthenon and the new exhibition halls built adjacent to it.  It was simply sublime- I can see why it has earned a 2011 award.  So, to sum it up, truly excellent design is marked by the feeling of sublime beauty, structural integrity, and meaningful use of materials.

Well, that's my quick answer for now! Please let me know if you'd like to ask me any other questions or to clarify anything I've said.

Thanks for asking my opinion! :)

Kind regards,
Tara 

-------------------------------------------
Tara Imani AIA
Principal
Tara Imani Designs, LLC
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2011 22:54
From: Mike Mense
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Response to Tara Imani, no apologies necessary, but next time, tell us how you recognize excellent design, ok?

Mike Mense FAIA


Original Message:
Sent: 06-02-2011 20:22
From: Tara Imani
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

I am enjoying reading all the well thought posts on this great, relevant topic of design (haven't read them all yet).  In my exuberance, I wanted to mention Steven Gottesman's coments, in particular- those are quotable quotes, well said.  I may borrow them!

At a pool party today after our daughter's elementary school graduation, I met with several parents on a casual basis.  It turned out, one was a developer and another one was looking for an architect for one of her family member's proposed projects.  It was interesting to hear non-architects talking about architecture and get their unedited perception of what we do.  I will share more later.

Please excuse the intrusion...

Best regards, 

-------------------------------------------
Tara Imani AIA
Principal
Tara Imani Designs, LLC
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------

I like the idea of discussing bathrooms or Toilets for us commercial /institutional Architects. The following few examples are lessons learned on various projects over the years.

 

Fixture counts - Client wants a non gender atmosphere so they don't want male and female toilets. This clients student population which was a predominantly women's institution wanted to do away with the names on toilets because they also wanted to address the needs of a transgender population. First the design team had to convince the school that by plumbing code they could not do away with the Male and Female toilets. The code only addresses the need by male female population and the number of fixtures is only the minimum. Also the number of fixtures could not be reduced to create single use toilets to address the transgender needs. That had to above the minimum of men/women population.

• The lesson I got out of this was building codes do not always accommodate ideological agendas but if people are flexible all can be accommodated.

 

Light fixtures - Several times after being constructed I have been called on the carpet by the owner's representative because the lighting is in adequate or not appropriate for the location.  Few designers I know like 2'x2 fixtures or lay in ceilings. So they put hard ceiling in toilets and down lights. In some toilets because of size a single down light is inadequate for lighting. The fixtures had to be replaced because it was dark as closet.  Also light fixtures mounted vertically on the mirror to light the mirror  may be appropriate for Hospitality but really don't fly where people are really ill. The glare is way too much.

 

• My lesson is that lighting needs to be thought out and based on experience not what is cool. I myself hate sitting in a dark toilet why should I expect someone else.

 

Drafting Symbols/families can get you in trouble.  Make sure the detailing staff has accurate symbols/families. Recently a fully recessed paper towel accessory was used where a semi recessed unit was used. Well the semi-recessed unit poked into the sink approach area. Luckily we had space to relocate the unit.

 

• My lesson is that the people detailing the toilets need to have all the information about what is going in a toilet so that they can make correct decisions. Fixtures, chase requirements, and finishes. Sometimes it's the least experienced so they need to be watched. Job captains need to review their work. Construction repairs after the fact are expensive and can be avoided.

 

I hope everyone finds this useful and cause one to pause and think about the lowly toilet next time the design opportunity arrives

 

Keep the Faith,

-------------------------------------------
David DeFilippo AIA
Tsoi/Kobus Associates
Milton MA
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2011 02:06
From: Tara Imani
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

In response to Mike Mense's question: "...but next time, tell us how you recognize excellent design, ok?", I will give a short response for now.  It's been years since I was in architecture school, so I've missed the critiques.  We have lost that- it seems- in our profession; the art of design is down-played as soon as we step out into the "real" world.  Maybe there are firms who've retained this studio atmosphere- yet, for the most part, the client's wants and budget are what seem to be the deciding factor on any given project's design.

So, how do I recognize excellent design?  To that, I say, I recognize excellent design when I see and/or experience it.  And, I strive for design excellence in my own projects.  Buildings look far different in reality than on paper.  An orthogonally laid out double-loaded corridor of offices may be expedient, but the plan that brings a dynamic force will end up engaging the end-user more.

As an end-user, I am most interested in things like good water pressure, cleanliness, spaciousness, plans that make sense as opposed to "maze-like" layouts, etc.  And there's the wow factor.  I experienced the wow factor when I attended the newly minted FAIA fellows convocation at the 2006 AIA Convention in Los Angeles, held at Frank Gehry's Disney Hall. It was a beautifully designed space.  I thought the lobby was too tight to enjoy and it felt a bit chopped up, not a place conducive to mingling...but the auditorium itself was beautifully done- the finish woodwork was amazing and I loved how he centered the organist in the middle of the back wall of the stage- almost "dangling" in mid-facade.

Excellent design in terms of city planning is very lacking these, imho- although there are good pockets of it throughout places I've visited throughout the U.S.  I recently visited Cleveland and was reminded why it's been called the demeaning term "mistake on the lake."  What a missed opportunity to use the waterfront in a better way.  Some improvement exists near the Science center and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, other than that, it is an eyesore. 

Yet, it's easy to be an armchair critic.  It's much different when you're the one solving the problems head-on.

Back to talking about architecture projects.  I recently had a prospective client contact me about designing a sports field and adjacent support facilities.  After hearing the client's vision, I was inspired to want to help raise funds and envisioned getting it LEED certified and using a type of "grass-crete" product as the parking lot.  Yet, nothing has come about due to insufficient budget, lack of foresight in purchasing a lot in a city that's requirements were more stringent than the client's budget could withstand.  The client wanted a simple plot of grass, some portable potties, and a gravel parking lot; the City, on the other hand, expected a paved lot with fully usable restroom facilities.  It's like the Jack Sprat riddle: "...and never the twain shall meet."

Again, proving the budget- in this case, lack of funding- dictates design.

Or, take a residential client who's stuck with a bummer of a house- a real rat-maze layout, horrible exterior massing translating into zero curb appeal, but the home-owner doesn't want to move.  Oh well, so much for any grand ideas or solutions by the architect.  If the client doesn't want to move, then no deal.

Again, proving that the basis of excellent design begins with a good, solid, serious benefactor- like the Medici family in Rome.

We need a Renaissance now!

Back to the topic of excellent design.  I think we can put the criteria for such into two categories: must haves and subjective qualities.  Must haves: firmness and commodity.  Subjective: delight. (To be clear, we MUST have beauty- however, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and in the hands of the one holding the wallet).  Must haves: LEED adherence or sustainable/green design, adherence to a reasonable budget, structural soundness, appropriate geometries of massing, space, (basically everything addressed in Francis Ching's book Form Space and Order).  Subjectives: this is the part I grapple with the most when dealing with commercial projects based on "standard" specs.  I tend to prefer natural stones, granite, marble, etc. and abhor linoleum, plastic laminate, and cheap-looking carpet (here, only talking finish materials).   

Overall, I recognize excellent design when it is well-executed.  I recently watched a documentary on the rebuilding of the Parthenon and the new exhibition halls built adjacent to it.  It was simply sublime- I can see why it has earned a 2011 award.  So, to sum it up, truly excellent design is marked by the feeling of sublime beauty, structural integrity, and meaningful use of materials.

Well, that's my quick answer for now! Please let me know if you'd like to ask me any other questions or to clarify anything I've said.

Thanks for asking my opinion! :)

Kind regards,
Tara 

-------------------------------------------
Tara Imani AIA
Principal
Tara Imani Designs, LLC
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------

Response to David DeFillipo, the AIA is doing its best to try to capture, harvest, whatever, and disseminate, the kind of knowledge that your post reflects.  Its amazing of what many architects are unaware.  I wish the architecture and interior design mags would devote an issue to the toilet.  That could be very cool, and certainly deserved.  Maybe it takes a strategic alliance betweeen Metropolis and Toto to make it happen. 

Mike Mense FAIA



Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2011 12:47
From: David DeFilippo
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

I like the idea of discussing bathrooms or Toilets for us commercial /institutional Architects. The following few examples are lessons learned on various projects over the years.

 

Fixture counts - Client wants a non gender atmosphere so they don't want male and female toilets. This clients student population which was a predominantly women's institution wanted to do away with the names on toilets because they also wanted to address the needs of a transgender population. First the design team had to convince the school that by plumbing code they could not do away with the Male and Female toilets. The code only addresses the need by male female population and the number of fixtures is only the minimum. Also the number of fixtures could not be reduced to create single use toilets to address the transgender needs. That had to above the minimum of men/women population.

• The lesson I got out of this was building codes do not always accommodate ideological agendas but if people are flexible all can be accommodated.

 

Light fixtures - Several times after being constructed I have been called on the carpet by the owner's representative because the lighting is in adequate or not appropriate for the location.  Few designers I know like 2'x2 fixtures or lay in ceilings. So they put hard ceiling in toilets and down lights. In some toilets because of size a single down light is inadequate for lighting. The fixtures had to be replaced because it was dark as closet.  Also light fixtures mounted vertically on the mirror to light the mirror  may be appropriate for Hospitality but really don't fly where people are really ill. The glare is way too much.

 

• My lesson is that lighting needs to be thought out and based on experience not what is cool. I myself hate sitting in a dark toilet why should I expect someone else.

 

Drafting Symbols/families can get you in trouble.  Make sure the detailing staff has accurate symbols/families. Recently a fully recessed paper towel accessory was used where a semi recessed unit was used. Well the semi-recessed unit poked into the sink approach area. Luckily we had space to relocate the unit.

 

• My lesson is that the people detailing the toilets need to have all the information about what is going in a toilet so that they can make correct decisions. Fixtures, chase requirements, and finishes. Sometimes it's the least experienced so they need to be watched. Job captains need to review their work. Construction repairs after the fact are expensive and can be avoided.

 

I hope everyone finds this useful and cause one to pause and think about the lowly toilet next time the design opportunity arrives

 

Keep the Faith,

-------------------------------------------
David DeFilippo AIA
Tsoi/Kobus Associates
Milton MA
-------------------------------------------

Response to Tara, boy howdy, I can't wait to see a long response from you.  Here are a few follow-ons to your comments, at least I hope they follow.  I have always thought that the most important aspect of a hotel is whether the shower can be brought to the right temperature and be made to stay there.  The problem is, I am unaware of a reliable guide to whether that will be true.  So, instead, I stay at the latest, coolest, most avant garde(sp?) hotel that I can afford.  Not sure what that tells us.  Maybe its related to this.  Developers and realtors have been heard to say that there is no building that can't be improved with landscaping.  As an architect, that's a little depressing, maybe?  But, I have to say, that this architect, who does a lot of zany, creative work, agrees with that claim completely.  We can either continue to live in our small rarefied world of ARCHITECTURE, or we can engage the greater public and come to be important to them.

Let's turn your comment about the boundary between school and real life upside down.  I think the schools are wildly important, were great fun for me, and I do not think they should become a place for creating employees.  Nonetheless, I think the problem, at least the problem that we can do anything about, is with the schools and not the real world.  We need to educate architects so that they are strong enough, confident enough, even creative enough to engage with the heathens and bring them around.  You can't do that unless you truly do, ALSO, respect your client's values.  As I have said before here, I see no conflict between my devotion to Mother Art and the needs and wants of my clients.  Do everything for a reason that your client understands and do it artfully and everything works.

But that isn't quite the whole story.  I have had what some might characterize as a very successful career.  I have built, oh, I don't know, maybe 1500 projects, and at least 1000 of them are significantly, and mostly successfully, I think, artful.  But the way I have been able to make that happen is by giving it away, either to my employees or my clients or, ugh, the contractor.  I know that is not a model that many are going to adopt.  I have to give it away because so many other architects either can't be bothered with "regular folks" or, when they do engage those folks, they provide ARCHITECTURE instead solving their client's problem(s).  As a profession, we need to find a way to do what we love to do in a way that makes sense to a much larger percentage of the populace.  Based on my experience, I believe that is possible.

Let me suggest that what we really need is a way of recognizing excellent architecture that even an accountant can understand.  I do not think that goal is in any way in conflict with our creative freedom.  No, instead, it can inspire to even greater specific architecture.

That's probably enough, if not too much, of a response.  Tara, come back at me, if you will. 

Mike Mense FAIA



Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2011 02:06
From: Tara Imani
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

In response to Mike Mense's question: "...but next time, tell us how you recognize excellent design, ok?", I will give a short response for now.  It's been years since I was in architecture school, so I've missed the critiques.  We have lost that- it seems- in our profession; the art of design is down-played as soon as we step out into the "real" world.  Maybe there are firms who've retained this studio atmosphere- yet, for the most part, the client's wants and budget are what seem to be the deciding factor on any given project's design.

So, how do I recognize excellent design?  To that, I say, I recognize excellent design when I see and/or experience it.  And, I strive for design excellence in my own projects.  Buildings look far different in reality than on paper.  An orthogonally laid out double-loaded corridor of offices may be expedient, but the plan that brings a dynamic force will end up engaging the end-user more.

As an end-user, I am most interested in things like good water pressure, cleanliness, spaciousness, plans that make sense as opposed to "maze-like" layouts, etc.  And there's the wow factor.  I experienced the wow factor when I attended the newly minted FAIA fellows convocation at the 2006 AIA Convention in Los Angeles, held at Frank Gehry's Disney Hall. It was a beautifully designed space.  I thought the lobby was too tight to enjoy and it felt a bit chopped up, not a place conducive to mingling...but the auditorium itself was beautifully done- the finish woodwork was amazing and I loved how he centered the organist in the middle of the back wall of the stage- almost "dangling" in mid-facade.

Excellent design in terms of city planning is very lacking these, imho- although there are good pockets of it throughout places I've visited throughout the U.S.  I recently visited Cleveland and was reminded why it's been called the demeaning term "mistake on the lake."  What a missed opportunity to use the waterfront in a better way.  Some improvement exists near the Science center and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, other than that, it is an eyesore. 

Yet, it's easy to be an armchair critic.  It's much different when you're the one solving the problems head-on.

Back to talking about architecture projects.  I recently had a prospective client contact me about designing a sports field and adjacent support facilities.  After hearing the client's vision, I was inspired to want to help raise funds and envisioned getting it LEED certified and using a type of "grass-crete" product as the parking lot.  Yet, nothing has come about due to insufficient budget, lack of foresight in purchasing a lot in a city that's requirements were more stringent than the client's budget could withstand.  The client wanted a simple plot of grass, some portable potties, and a gravel parking lot; the City, on the other hand, expected a paved lot with fully usable restroom facilities.  It's like the Jack Sprat riddle: "...and never the twain shall meet."

Again, proving the budget- in this case, lack of funding- dictates design.

Or, take a residential client who's stuck with a bummer of a house- a real rat-maze layout, horrible exterior massing translating into zero curb appeal, but the home-owner doesn't want to move.  Oh well, so much for any grand ideas or solutions by the architect.  If the client doesn't want to move, then no deal.

Again, proving that the basis of excellent design begins with a good, solid, serious benefactor- like the Medici family in Rome.

We need a Renaissance now!

Back to the topic of excellent design.  I think we can put the criteria for such into two categories: must haves and subjective qualities.  Must haves: firmness and commodity.  Subjective: delight. (To be clear, we MUST have beauty- however, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and in the hands of the one holding the wallet).  Must haves: LEED adherence or sustainable/green design, adherence to a reasonable budget, structural soundness, appropriate geometries of massing, space, (basically everything addressed in Francis Ching's book Form Space and Order).  Subjectives: this is the part I grapple with the most when dealing with commercial projects based on "standard" specs.  I tend to prefer natural stones, granite, marble, etc. and abhor linoleum, plastic laminate, and cheap-looking carpet (here, only talking finish materials).   

Overall, I recognize excellent design when it is well-executed.  I recently watched a documentary on the rebuilding of the Parthenon and the new exhibition halls built adjacent to it.  It was simply sublime- I can see why it has earned a 2011 award.  So, to sum it up, truly excellent design is marked by the feeling of sublime beauty, structural integrity, and meaningful use of materials.

Well, that's my quick answer for now! Please let me know if you'd like to ask me any other questions or to clarify anything I've said.

Thanks for asking my opinion! :)

Kind regards,
Tara 

-------------------------------------------
Tara Imani AIA
Principal
Tara Imani Designs, LLC
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------

REPOSTED Message (with edits):
Hi Mike,

Thanks so much for your response! :) You'd said, in part: ///As a profession, we need to find a way to do what we love to do in a way that makes sense to a much larger percentage of the populace.  Based on my experience, I believe that is possible.///

Congrats to you on completing so many projects in your career, that is truly awesome. I agree with the statement: "If you're not doing what you love, then you're just wasting your time."  Sometimes, though, even the best jobs require a great deal of extra effort, discipline, and sacrifice- but at the core of the activity should lay JOY.

You also said: ///Let me suggest that what we really need is a way of recognizing excellent architecture that even an accountant can understand.  I do not think that goal is in any way in conflict with our creative freedom.  No, instead, it can inspire to even greater specific architecture.///

I had to laugh at your bringing up the position of accountant.  I can just hear it now..."but, Mr. Patel Zimbabwe, it's a Mona Lisa!"  And his (the accountant's response) would be, "Yes, yes it is very beautiful indeed.  But, I'm sorry Mrs. Smith, you cannot afford a Mona Lisa."  Isn't money the bottom line?  You gave your architecture (the design research part, the extra effort) away for free because your client could not (would not?) pay for it-- am I understanding you correctly?

I have done the same.  I have even paid for the shipping of a palette of bathroom fixtures for a client who- at the last minute- was going to completely cancel his Master Bathroom remodel that we'd spent the better part of 3 months designing together all because the tile showroom was going to charge him for freight (it was during a previous gas price hike).  Not seeing my/his vision come to fruition was not an option for me, so I stepped in and asked the tile company mgr how much would the freight be. He estimated it would be $130.  I waited for the client to say, "Ok, I'll pay."  But, he didn't. So, at that point, I offered to pay for it.  When the bill arrived, it was over three times that amount! This took a good chunk away from my fees-- which were probably not enough in the first place (the fee was for the remodel design of two bathrooms and this entailed a lot of time spent with the clients at showrooms, etc).   I don't mind going the extra mile.  In hindsight, maybe I should have just let the client have his way- as the tile installer detracted from the beautiful tiles with grout lines that were way too wide and stopping the tiles differently from that depicted on the elevations. 

I can be long-winded...sorry.

Anyhow, since you've got so much experience working with clients and have (I assume) obviously found a way to work through the mundane issues I'm talking about, maybe you should write a book, too. (I mean this very sincerely.)

///That's probably enough, if not too much, of a response.  Tara, come back at me, if you will. ///

Ditto for me, Mike.  The topic of what encompasses excellent design is very broad as is the road that leads one to becoming a great designer- or, are great designers simply born with the innate talent?

Speaking of hotel design- I wanted to mention the importance of appropriate ceiling heights.  I dislike low plate heights.  My family and I once reserved a suite at the Hyatt Regency Ohio Center in Columbus, Ohio; the floor to ceiling heights of the rooms were so low that it was almost claustrophobic-- I would like to go back there and measure it because the hallways leading to the guest rooms could not have been 8'-0" max and the long, narrow hallways made it feel even lower.  Being the picky one, I talked everyone into going to another hotel.  So, we checked out and went to an older hotel, the Hyatt on Capitol Square, and loved the property- the rooms were bigger, ceilings higher, and the bathrooms were fantastic with a separate dressing area right outside the bathroom.

I agree with you that, as architects, we need to listen to our clients and solve their problems-- not dictate what should be done.  Yet, we are the ones with the education.  Sort of like going to the doctor- everyone can be their own best doctor; yet, sometimes, we must rely on the professional's opinion (sometimes). It's a fine balance to walk.

Great discussion thread.  I look forward to reading the book mentioned on a related thread: "Designing the Design Firm"- I recall reading the write-up about it on www.di.net and am eager to read it.

Keep up the great convo.  It's very educational.  I only wish the format of AIA KN were more like that of LinkedIn or Facebook in terms of these discussion layouts-- as it is, it's very difficult to follow without a great deal of patience.

Best,
Tara

P.S.  I love the phrase "boy howdy"! :D


-------------------------------------------
Tara Imani AIA
Principal
Tara Imani Designs, LLC
Houston TX


Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2011 23:21
From: Mike Mense
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Response to Tara, boy howdy, I can't wait to see a long response from you.  Here are a few follow-ons to your comments, at least I hope they follow.  I have always thought that the most important aspect of a hotel is whether the shower can be brought to the right temperature and be made to stay there.  The problem is, I am unaware of a reliable guide to whether that will be true.  So, instead, I stay at the latest, coolest, most avant garde(sp?) hotel that I can afford.  Not sure what that tells us.  Maybe its related to this.  Developers and realtors have been heard to say that there is no building that can't be improved with landscaping.  As an architect, that's a little depressing, maybe?  But, I have to say, that this architect, who does a lot of zany, creative work, agrees with that claim completely.  We can either continue to live in our small rarefied world of ARCHITECTURE, or we can engage the greater public and come to be important to them.

Let's turn your comment about the boundary between school and real life upside down.  I think the schools are wildly important, were great fun for me, and I do not think they should become a place for creating employees.  Nonetheless, I think the problem, at least the problem that we can do anything about, is with the schools and not the real world.  We need to educate architects so that they are strong enough, confident enough, even creative enough to engage with the heathens and bring them around.  You can't do that unless you truly do, ALSO, respect your client's values.  As I have said before here, I see no conflict between my devotion to Mother Art and the needs and wants of my clients.  Do everything for a reason that your client understands and do it artfully and everything works.

But that isn't quite the whole story.  I have had what some might characterize as a very successful career.  I have built, oh, I don't know, maybe 1500 projects, and at least 1000 of them are significantly, and mostly successfully, I think, artful.  But the way I have been able to make that happen is by giving it away, either to my employees or my clients or, ugh, the contractor.  I know that is not a model that many are going to adopt.  I have to give it away because so many other architects either can't be bothered with "regular folks" or, when they do engage those folks, they provide ARCHITECTURE instead solving their client's problem(s).  As a profession, we need to find a way to do what we love to do in a way that makes sense to a much larger percentage of the populace.  Based on my experience, I believe that is possible.

Let me suggest that what we really need is a way of recognizing excellent architecture that even an accountant can understand.  I do not think that goal is in any way in conflict with our creative freedom.  No, instead, it can inspire to even greater specific architecture.

That's probably enough, if not too much, of a response.  Tara, come back at me, if you will. 

Mike Mense FAIA



Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2011 02:06
From: Tara Imani
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

In response to Mike Mense's question: "...but next time, tell us how you recognize excellent design, ok?", I will give a short response for now.  It's been years since I was in architecture school, so I've missed the critiques.  We have lost that- it seems- in our profession; the art of design is down-played as soon as we step out into the "real" world.  Maybe there are firms who've retained this studio atmosphere- yet, for the most part, the client's wants and budget are what seem to be the deciding factor on any given project's design.

So, how do I recognize excellent design?  To that, I say, I recognize excellent design when I see and/or experience it.  And, I strive for design excellence in my own projects.  Buildings look far different in reality than on paper.  An orthogonally laid out double-loaded corridor of offices may be expedient, but the plan that brings a dynamic force will end up engaging the end-user more.

As an end-user, I am most interested in things like good water pressure, cleanliness, spaciousness, plans that make sense as opposed to "maze-like" layouts, etc.  And there's the wow factor.  I experienced the wow factor when I attended the newly minted FAIA fellows convocation at the 2006 AIA Convention in Los Angeles, held at Frank Gehry's Disney Hall. It was a beautifully designed space.  I thought the lobby was too tight to enjoy and it felt a bit chopped up, not a place conducive to mingling...but the auditorium itself was beautifully done- the finish woodwork was amazing and I loved how he centered the organist in the middle of the back wall of the stage- almost "dangling" in mid-facade.

Excellent design in terms of city planning is very lacking these, imho- although there are good pockets of it throughout places I've visited throughout the U.S.  I recently visited Cleveland and was reminded why it's been called the demeaning term "mistake on the lake."  What a missed opportunity to use the waterfront in a better way.  Some improvement exists near the Science center and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, other than that, it is an eyesore. 

Yet, it's easy to be an armchair critic.  It's much different when you're the one solving the problems head-on.

Back to talking about architecture projects.  I recently had a prospective client contact me about designing a sports field and adjacent support facilities.  After hearing the client's vision, I was inspired to want to help raise funds and envisioned getting it LEED certified and using a type of "grass-crete" product as the parking lot.  Yet, nothing has come about due to insufficient budget, lack of foresight in purchasing a lot in a city that's requirements were more stringent than the client's budget could withstand.  The client wanted a simple plot of grass, some portable potties, and a gravel parking lot; the City, on the other hand, expected a paved lot with fully usable restroom facilities.  It's like the Jack Sprat riddle: "...and never the twain shall meet."

Again, proving the budget- in this case, lack of funding- dictates design.

Or, take a residential client who's stuck with a bummer of a house- a real rat-maze layout, horrible exterior massing translating into zero curb appeal, but the home-owner doesn't want to move.  Oh well, so much for any grand ideas or solutions by the architect.  If the client doesn't want to move, then no deal.

Again, proving that the basis of excellent design begins with a good, solid, serious benefactor- like the Medici family in Rome.

We need a Renaissance now!

Back to the topic of excellent design.  I think we can put the criteria for such into two categories: must haves and subjective qualities.  Must haves: firmness and commodity.  Subjective: delight. (To be clear, we MUST have beauty- however, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and in the hands of the one holding the wallet).  Must haves: LEED adherence or sustainable/green design, adherence to a reasonable budget, structural soundness, appropriate geometries of massing, space, (basically everything addressed in Francis Ching's book Form Space and Order).  Subjectives: this is the part I grapple with the most when dealing with commercial projects based on "standard" specs.  I tend to prefer natural stones, granite, marble, etc. and abhor linoleum, plastic laminate, and cheap-looking carpet (here, only talking finish materials).   

Overall, I recognize excellent design when it is well-executed.  I recently watched a documentary on the rebuilding of the Parthenon and the new exhibition halls built adjacent to it.  It was simply sublime- I can see why it has earned a 2011 award.  So, to sum it up, truly excellent design is marked by the feeling of sublime beauty, structural integrity, and meaningful use of materials.

Well, that's my quick answer for now! Please let me know if you'd like to ask me any other questions or to clarify anything I've said.

Thanks for asking my opinion! :)

Kind regards,
Tara 

-------------------------------------------
Tara Imani AIA
Principal
Tara Imani Designs, LLC
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------

Reply to William Farris, Udaman!  How do you propose to choose those best peers who should review our work?
And, well, maybe I don't think you are quite the man.  Why do you think there is a conflict between art and careful programming?  Think Ian McHarg?  Wasn't Kahn asking for careful programmning when he talked about "what a things wants to be"?  In my office, to be inappropriately personal, we say, "everything for a reason, artfully done".
But, really you are daman.  You raise great questions.  Are architects just born?  If not, how do we go about making sure they know what to do with the programming information?  And finally, are you saying that among the many things that a piece of architecture is, be it a gas station or a museum, that the thing that is important is something artistic?
-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA
Owner
mmenseArchitect
Anchorage AK
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-31-2011 09:58
From: William Farris
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

If we are talking about design, and this is the Committee on Design, then I would argue that the value of any artistic skill lies in the quality and respect one has for artistic education - a unique priveledge that the COD can provide leadership for. I believe most top designers would probably agree that artistic education is extremely undervalued by our society, as well as by most underskilled architects. I would propose that extremely few architects would even know how to converse at any advanced level, in terms of how to execute artistic issues within our profession. Heck, there are even some great designers who have trouble verbalizing what they do. This is not easy information to pass to around.

The ability to create requires innovation, uniqueness, and discovery. That can never be legislated nor regulated. The best we can do is peer review, by letting the very best in our profession judge and reward the newcomers to their level of skill. Promoting good design, talking about what it is, and how it's done, is the only path I know of to better design. As long as we keep talking about clients, society, values, economics, and ideology, we are still not talking about artistic execution of design. Nobody's artistic design skills are going to improve if we keep talking around design itself. No program nor building code is going to guide you to good art. If we want to keep denying the art of architecture, then you can bet the art won't be there.

Let's just assume we have a client who puts their complete trust in their architect (as many do). We know their needs and values. Great. Now what? Where does the great design skill come from? Too many architects, in my opinion, think that great design comes from great programming.  Then at the end, they quickly decorate their program, treating the artistic skills of our profession with very little respect. This also fools the client, because clients love programming - because it's done in their language, so naturally they fall for it's allure. But the product fails artistically in the end because the architect has turned everything we do into an objective science.

To quote Frank G himself:
"I think a lot of my collegues lost it, lose that relevance in the spirite of seriving their client, so that no matter what, they are serving their client. Even if the building they produce, that they think serves the client, doesn't really serve the client because it's not very good."

If the design skills are not there, then all those other arguments about what the client thinks suddenly evaportate.

-------------------------------------------
Rich Farris AIA
Dallas TX
-------------------------------------------

Mike:

I work mostly in healthcare architecture, which is probably the most heavily programmed of all niches. What could be more essential to function than a hospital? And because programming is so valuable and billable in healthcare, it's also one of the least creative of building niches. The exaggeration of programming in my world helps to starkly illustrate the problem for those with eyes to see it.

My thesis on this subject (to be published in great detail later this year) is that artistic creativity and programming are diametrically opposed to each other. Programming is an objective, reductive process of efficiency. An engineer could do it. Check the personality of most any top programmer in this business and most of them have the aptitude and thought process of an engineer. They thrive on data, sizes, economics, codes, and client driven business models. They live in the world of the known, the limited, and the instantly provable. That's all fine and dandy, but that won't produce what Eisenman refers to as real architecture. You could throw away the architect if you simply want to make a business calculation with building materials.

Creativity and innovation, on the other hand, are highly subjective processes that do not operate in a reductionist manner. Artistic discovery is all about finding the unknown and the unique. It's truly meant to blindside you if it's doing it's job. The more efficient you try to be with creativity, the more you will damage it. It's that simple. Most really good designers figure this out, and learn how to pair up both games effectively, because they understand the contradictions between these two worlds. 

-------------------------------------------
Rich Farris AIA
Dallas TX
-------------------------------------------




Original Message:
Sent: 06-02-2011 22:36
From: Mike Mense
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Reply to William Farris, Udaman!  How do you propose to choose those best peers who should review our work?
And, well, maybe I don't think you are quite the man.  Why do you think there is a conflict between art and careful programming?  Think Ian McHarg?  Wasn't Kahn asking for careful programmning when he talked about "what a things wants to be"?  In my office, to be inappropriately personal, we say, "everything for a reason, artfully done".
But, really you are daman.  You raise great questions.  Are architects just born?  If not, how do we go about making sure they know what to do with the programming information?  And finally, are you saying that among the many things that a piece of architecture is, be it a gas station or a museum, that the thing that is important is something artistic?
-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA
Owner
mmenseArchitect
Anchorage AK
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-31-2011 09:58
From: William Farris
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

If we are talking about design, and this is the Committee on Design, then I would argue that the value of any artistic skill lies in the quality and respect one has for artistic education - a unique priveledge that the COD can provide leadership for. I believe most top designers would probably agree that artistic education is extremely undervalued by our society, as well as by most underskilled architects. I would propose that extremely few architects would even know how to converse at any advanced level, in terms of how to execute artistic issues within our profession. Heck, there are even some great designers who have trouble verbalizing what they do. This is not easy information to pass to around.

The ability to create requires innovation, uniqueness, and discovery. That can never be legislated nor regulated. The best we can do is peer review, by letting the very best in our profession judge and reward the newcomers to their level of skill. Promoting good design, talking about what it is, and how it's done, is the only path I know of to better design. As long as we keep talking about clients, society, values, economics, and ideology, we are still not talking about artistic execution of design. Nobody's artistic design skills are going to improve if we keep talking around design itself. No program nor building code is going to guide you to good art. If we want to keep denying the art of architecture, then you can bet the art won't be there.

Let's just assume we have a client who puts their complete trust in their architect (as many do). We know their needs and values. Great. Now what? Where does the great design skill come from? Too many architects, in my opinion, think that great design comes from great programming.  Then at the end, they quickly decorate their program, treating the artistic skills of our profession with very little respect. This also fools the client, because clients love programming - because it's done in their language, so naturally they fall for it's allure. But the product fails artistically in the end because the architect has turned everything we do into an objective science.

To quote Frank G himself:
"I think a lot of my collegues lost it, lose that relevance in the spirite of seriving their client, so that no matter what, they are serving their client. Even if the building they produce, that they think serves the client, doesn't really serve the client because it's not very good."

If the design skills are not there, then all those other arguments about what the client thinks suddenly evaportate.

-------------------------------------------
Rich Farris AIA
Dallas TX
-------------------------------------------

Hi Jim et all:
I love this discussion and am committed to raising the value of the profession.

At the AIACC, we are doing the ground-up thing (learning from the success of many political strategists) by finding local instances (small areas within cities and counties) where architectural expertise is necessary (such as hillisdes, urban fabric, historic settings, corner lots, optimal sustainable opportunities) and working with the locals to establish codes that require ALL projects in these zones to hire an architect, reqardless of size or cost.

We feel that this ground up action will provide the necessary fees for architects to thoughtfully address design issues (ie, get paid to think!) and give them the confidence to affect change to the developer-driven design solution.

The idea is that society will eventually realize the important role that we play in addressing bigger picture issues and will look to the profession for leadership . . .  and be happy to pay the appropriate consulting fees that go hand-in-hand with clear, insightful and creative designs for the built environment.

Bonnie




-------------------------------------------
Bonnie Bridges AIA
Principal
Boor Bridges Architecture
San Francisco CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-30-2011 01:15
From: James Richard
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Creating value has been an illusive subject for our profession. How do we provide value, what differentiates us from the myriad of "allied professionals" that have eroded the identity and role of the architect, particularly in respect to design?

 

All too often the focus is placed at the pinnacle of the profession, "starchitects" or whatever trend setting firm currently in the spotlight, that they are out of touch and marginalize the profession by being irrelevant and out of touch.  Forget debating Liebskin or whether Gehry's latest is a retread, in that rarified air value takes on a whole different meaning. What is the "value" of art? That is the measure of value at that level, and if they didn't bring value they would not be as successful as they are. Debate ideology and stylistic issues all you like, the market has spoken.

 

If we want to restore value to what we do as architects, as related to design, we shouldn't be focused on the top, but the bottom. If you want to increase the value of architects through what we do, it should be by raising the bar. Instead focus on the fact that the architect up the street erected an absolute atrocity of a building that is an embarrassment to the profession. Focus on the architect that slaps yet another site adapted rubberstamped discount pharmacy on a site just cleared of a historic building. Or errecting cheap and out of scale structures to maximize the profits of a developer to the detriment of the context and community. There are many poorly designed below average buildings that corrode the fabric of our environment that are designed by architects. That's where we can establish value. We tend to turn a blind eye, yet most all commercial buildings and the fabric of our cities are designed by us in some way or another. We excuse this, but when homebuilders and contractors provide as good or better design "value" than architects, the line becomes blurred and there is no apparent value.

 

And before you say we can't do anything about it, we do control the AIA. Just about every architectural school requires a CV and portfolio of work as a requisite for acceptance; shouldn't the quality of your work be criteria for being an AIA member? Make it mean something to hire an architect, better yet an AIA member.

-------------------------------------------
James Richard AIA
Principal
Richard & Bauer Architecture LLC
Phoenix AZ
-------------------------------------------

Response to Bonnie,  For what little its worth, I think this is a neat strategy.  But I am troubled by the implicit suggestion that there are those local instances where architecture is not necessary.  Can you tell us more about that?  Do you think there are aspects of building that architects should give up?  Hope not, but also hope to hear more.
Mike


Original Message:
Sent: 05-31-2011 12:57
From: Bonnie Bridges
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Hi Jim et all:
I love this discussion and am committed to raising the value of the profession.

At the AIACC, we are doing the ground-up thing (learning from the success of many political strategists) by finding local instances (small areas within cities and counties) where architectural expertise is necessary (such as hillisdes, urban fabric, historic settings, corner lots, optimal sustainable opportunities) and working with the locals to establish codes that require ALL projects in these zones to hire an architect, reqardless of size or cost.

We feel that this ground up action will provide the necessary fees for architects to thoughtfully address design issues (ie, get paid to think!) and give them the confidence to affect change to the developer-driven design solution.

The idea is that society will eventually realize the important role that we play in addressing bigger picture issues and will look to the profession for leadership . . .  and be happy to pay the appropriate consulting fees that go hand-in-hand with clear, insightful and creative designs for the built environment.

Bonnie




-------------------------------------------
Bonnie Bridges AIA
Principal
Boor Bridges Architecture
San Francisco CA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-30-2011 01:15
From: James Richard
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Creating value has been an illusive subject for our profession. How do we provide value, what differentiates us from the myriad of "allied professionals" that have eroded the identity and role of the architect, particularly in respect to design?

 

All too often the focus is placed at the pinnacle of the profession, "starchitects" or whatever trend setting firm currently in the spotlight, that they are out of touch and marginalize the profession by being irrelevant and out of touch.  Forget debating Liebskin or whether Gehry's latest is a retread, in that rarified air value takes on a whole different meaning. What is the "value" of art? That is the measure of value at that level, and if they didn't bring value they would not be as successful as they are. Debate ideology and stylistic issues all you like, the market has spoken.

 

If we want to restore value to what we do as architects, as related to design, we shouldn't be focused on the top, but the bottom. If you want to increase the value of architects through what we do, it should be by raising the bar. Instead focus on the fact that the architect up the street erected an absolute atrocity of a building that is an embarrassment to the profession. Focus on the architect that slaps yet another site adapted rubberstamped discount pharmacy on a site just cleared of a historic building. Or errecting cheap and out of scale structures to maximize the profits of a developer to the detriment of the context and community. There are many poorly designed below average buildings that corrode the fabric of our environment that are designed by architects. That's where we can establish value. We tend to turn a blind eye, yet most all commercial buildings and the fabric of our cities are designed by us in some way or another. We excuse this, but when homebuilders and contractors provide as good or better design "value" than architects, the line becomes blurred and there is no apparent value.

 

And before you say we can't do anything about it, we do control the AIA. Just about every architectural school requires a CV and portfolio of work as a requisite for acceptance; shouldn't the quality of your work be criteria for being an AIA member? Make it mean something to hire an architect, better yet an AIA member.

-------------------------------------------
James Richard AIA
Principal
Richard & Bauer Architecture LLC
Phoenix AZ
-------------------------------------------

From James Richard below:

"If we want to restore value to what we do as architects, as related to design, we shouldn't be focused on the top, but the bottom."

With a shinking middle class there isn't much of the bottom that can afford architects.

-------------------------------------------
Ken Brogno AIA
Architect
AIA, LEED AP
San Francisco CA
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 05-30-2011 01:15
From: James Richard
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Creating value has been an illusive subject for our profession. How do we provide value, what differentiates us from the myriad of "allied professionals" that have eroded the identity and role of the architect, particularly in respect to design?

 

All too often the focus is placed at the pinnacle of the profession, "starchitects" or whatever trend setting firm currently in the spotlight, that they are out of touch and marginalize the profession by being irrelevant and out of touch.  Forget debating Liebskin or whether Gehry's latest is a retread, in that rarified air value takes on a whole different meaning. What is the "value" of art? That is the measure of value at that level, and if they didn't bring value they would not be as successful as they are. Debate ideology and stylistic issues all you like, the market has spoken.

 

If we want to restore value to what we do as architects, as related to design, we shouldn't be focused on the top, but the bottom. If you want to increase the value of architects through what we do, it should be by raising the bar. Instead focus on the fact that the architect up the street erected an absolute atrocity of a building that is an embarrassment to the profession. Focus on the architect that slaps yet another site adapted rubberstamped discount pharmacy on a site just cleared of a historic building. Or errecting cheap and out of scale structures to maximize the profits of a developer to the detriment of the context and community. There are many poorly designed below average buildings that corrode the fabric of our environment that are designed by architects. That's where we can establish value. We tend to turn a blind eye, yet most all commercial buildings and the fabric of our cities are designed by us in some way or another. We excuse this, but when homebuilders and contractors provide as good or better design "value" than architects, the line becomes blurred and there is no apparent value.

 

And before you say we can't do anything about it, we do control the AIA. Just about every architectural school requires a CV and portfolio of work as a requisite for acceptance; shouldn't the quality of your work be criteria for being an AIA member? Make it mean something to hire an architect, better yet an AIA member.

-------------------------------------------
James Richard AIA
Principal
Richard & Bauer Architecture LLC
Phoenix AZ
-------------------------------------------

Response to Kenneth Brogno, I think we need to make sure that they can't afford not to use us, no matter their standard of living.
-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA


Original Message:
Sent: 05-31-2011 15:31
From: Kenneth Brogno
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

From James Richard below:

"If we want to restore value to what we do as architects, as related to design, we shouldn't be focused on the top, but the bottom."

With a shinking middle class there isn't much of the bottom that can afford architects.

-------------------------------------------
Ken Brogno AIA
Architect
AIA, LEED AP
San Francisco CA
-------------------------------------------

Reply to William Farris!!!!!, I am so pleased to have your words in this conversation.  Believe me, I respect your opinion but I could not disagree more.  In my office we say, everything for a reason artfully done.  I have never seen a condition where the program got in the way of creativity.  To the contrary, it is precisely the complexities of the program (and I mean program in a very large way, including the needs and goals of the client, the users, the public, the neighbors, the earth and even the architect, among others) that lead me to novel solutions.  I firmly believe that my work is appreciated because so much of it is what I call "legitimate individuation."  That is, we do something new, but it is legitimately new because it arises from genuine aspects of the program.  If programmers are dull, or architects who bother to program are too exhausted to design, well, that's not because the two concepts are in conflict.  I am sure I have said this before, but I would refer you to Ian McHarg.  The other thing here that maybe needs to be said is this.  Careful programming does not lead to standard solutions.  It does get rid of dumb ideas but it inspires specificity if done well.  I think specificity is one of the keys to successful architecture.  William, please do let us know when your book comes out.  I want to write a critical review.  And I really do hope that you will come back with more.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA




 

Thanks Mike.  My book "Principles of Creativity" will hopefully be ready sometime in September.  I'll keep you posted.

I think one only need walk outside and look around to see that we have a bit of a problem with what most architects are designing. When you look around, you probably see buildings that are affordable, safe and functional, but they are unlikely to be all that creative. At the institutional level, I see a lot of firms trying to decorate a program, in general. The aesthetic part is almost an afterthought because they literally do not know how to develop a valid artistic concept of any meaningful depth. The investment in art is not there, because the education in art process is literally not there. The lack of respect for artistic education has kept too many away from the knowledge they need to be truly effective designers. Thus they don't even understand what real design leadership really means.

As firms and building niches get more specialized, the problem is only getting worse. Specialization is an attempt to improve liability, function, and economics, but one thing it is not improving is creativity and uniqueness. That's because the former is built on field experience, repetition, and objective knowledge, while artistic creativity is stale the very moment you try to repeat anything.

I'll tell you how I came across this point of view. I have both an art degree and an architecture degree, and while getting those, I found the teaching methods to be highly contradictory to each other. I could not resolve the differences between the art department and the architecture department. I was extremely creative in art, but I was really laboring over the issue in architecture. I couldn't understandy why my creativity was so trapped in one environment, and so free in the other. It seemed like the more I learned about architecture, the more rigid my designs got.

Now, let's step ahead to graduate school. I was fortunate enough to be exposed to some pretty sharp architects in graduate school, back in the 1980's. Guys like Thome Mayne, Michael Rotondi, Eric Moss, Peter Eisenman, and Zaha Hadid, just to name a few. And these architects turned my entire architectural education on it's head. Their teaching was literally 180 degress different from my more conventional undergraduate education. But here is the real kicker. After they rotated my thinking 180 degrees, guess what happened? My new architectural thinking began to align perfectly with my art education. It was a perfect match. But to get there, I had to break a lot of rules that my undergrad architecture professors had insisted on. My own creative skills in architecture began to explode quite easily, simply by rearranging my thinking. Conclusion: Conventional architectural education stood in the way of my creativity.  Literally.

In the end, I found that top designers think a lot more like art professors and lot less like 'typical' architecture professors.  That was the very beginning of my discovery that something very different was going on here, something that needs to be articulated and discussed. Most architects, I feel, are not getting the proper education in art to be as effective artistically as they should be.  Little wonder why.  They keep looking in all the wrong places, all the least artistics places, to try to find their 'art.'  And it's just not there.  They want to validate their intellects with technical knowledge. It's like a musician who can play anything, but doesn't have a clue how to write a song.  We have a lot of buildings out there that can't carry a tune.

-------------------------------------------
Rich Farris AIA
Architect
Dallas TX
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2011 22:40
From: Mike Mense
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin


Reply to William Farris!!!!!, I am so pleased to have your words in this conversation.  Believe me, I respect your opinion but I could not disagree more.  In my office we say, everything for a reason artfully done.  I have never seen a condition where the program got in the way of creativity.  To the contrary, it is precisely the complexities of the program (and I mean program in a very large way, including the needs and goals of the client, the users, the public, the neighbors, the earth and even the architect, among others) that lead me to novel solutions.  I firmly believe that my work is appreciated because so much of it is what I call "legitimate individuation."  That is, we do something new, but it is legitimately new because it arises from genuine aspects of the program.  If programmers are dull, or architects who bother to program are too exhausted to design, well, that's not because the two concepts are in conflict.  I am sure I have said this before, but I would refer you to Ian McHarg.  The other thing here that maybe needs to be said is this.  Careful programming does not lead to standard solutions.  It does get rid of dumb ideas but it inspires specificity if done well.  I think specificity is one of the keys to successful architecture.  William, please do let us know when your book comes out.  I want to write a critical review.  And I really do hope that you will come back with more.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA




 

Further response to William Farris, I don't know if you have attended any Committtee on Design events, but I wish you would in the future.  I love the seriousness of your response, and agree with much of it, but there are significant ways in which we continue to disagree.  I have to wait for the weekend (to quote Witold Rybczinski(sp?) to have the time and energy to prepare a worthy response. 

Mike Mense FAIA


Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2011 10:08
From: William Farris
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Thanks Mike.  My book "Principles of Creativity" will hopefully be ready sometime in September.  I'll keep you posted.

I think one only need walk outside and look around to see that we have a bit of a problem with what most architects are designing. When you look around, you probably see buildings that are affordable, safe and functional, but they are unlikely to be all that creative. At the institutional level, I see a lot of firms trying to decorate a program, in general. The aesthetic part is almost an afterthought because they literally do not know how to develop a valid artistic concept of any meaningful depth. The investment in art is not there, because the education in art process is literally not there. The lack of respect for artistic education has kept too many away from the knowledge they need to be truly effective designers. Thus they don't even understand what real design leadership really means.

As firms and building niches get more specialized, the problem is only getting worse. Specialization is an attempt to improve liability, function, and economics, but one thing it is not improving is creativity and uniqueness. That's because the former is built on field experience, repetition, and objective knowledge, while artistic creativity is stale the very moment you try to repeat anything.

I'll tell you how I came across this point of view. I have both an art degree and an architecture degree, and while getting those, I found the teaching methods to be highly contradictory to each other. I could not resolve the differences between the art department and the architecture department. I was extremely creative in art, but I was really laboring over the issue in architecture. I couldn't understandy why my creativity was so trapped in one environment, and so free in the other. It seemed like the more I learned about architecture, the more rigid my designs got.

Now, let's step ahead to graduate school. I was fortunate enough to be exposed to some pretty sharp architects in graduate school, back in the 1980's. Guys like Thome Mayne, Michael Rotondi, Eric Moss, Peter Eisenman, and Zaha Hadid, just to name a few. And these architects turned my entire architectural education on it's head. Their teaching was literally 180 degress different from my more conventional undergraduate education. But here is the real kicker. After they rotated my thinking 180 degrees, guess what happened? My new architectural thinking began to align perfectly with my art education. It was a perfect match. But to get there, I had to break a lot of rules that my undergrad architecture professors had insisted on. My own creative skills in architecture began to explode quite easily, simply by rearranging my thinking. Conclusion: Conventional architectural education stood in the way of my creativity.  Literally.

In the end, I found that top designers think a lot more like art professors and lot less like 'typical' architecture professors.  That was the very beginning of my discovery that something very different was going on here, something that needs to be articulated and discussed. Most architects, I feel, are not getting the proper education in art to be as effective artistically as they should be.  Little wonder why.  They keep looking in all the wrong places, all the least artistics places, to try to find their 'art.'  And it's just not there.  They want to validate their intellects with technical knowledge. It's like a musician who can play anything, but doesn't have a clue how to write a song.  We have a lot of buildings out there that can't carry a tune.

-------------------------------------------
Rich Farris AIA
Architect
Dallas TX
-------------------------------------------

The Medici were from Florence, not Rome.

Response to Stephen Loos, since next year is "my year" at COD, I am going to make this one of our priorities.  At the same time, it seems that maybe others are reading this because last week one of our AG members was invited to join an AIA Awards Task Force that seemingly will have a similar goal.  We will work to get the two entities to cooperate and support each other.
-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA


Original Message:
Sent: 06-04-2011 16:19
From: Stephen Loos
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Thanks for pulling us back to your basic question, Mike.  I thought we were having a lot of great discussion - not much of which was really pertinent to your essential question.

i do agree that knowledge generation from the COD might be a different animal than that of many of the other KC's.  Which is why I still believe that one of the greatest contributions COD could make to the "understanding"
of design excellence would be in helping the national and local awards programs develop depth in their descriptions of why particular projects are exceptional and merit award recognition.  Most of our awards programs are nothing more than slide presentations of great photography which do nothing but convince the general public that architects are all about aesthetics and little else.  I think our awards programs ought to have more depth and richness of development to more fully explain their worthiness.

To me, this could be a rich discussion for the COD to take on - one that could really add to the understanidng of what makes design excellence.

Best regards,

Steve
-------------------------------------------
Stephen Loos FAIA
Principal
The Mulhern Group Ltd.
Lyons CO




 

Response to James Richard, I thought I sent this already but I don't see it.  So here it goes again.  Who is capable of deciding whether an architect is worthy of being a member of the AIA.  What would be the criteria that they would use to make that decision?  This is not intended as a challenge.  It is intended as an honest question.  Hope you will answer.
-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA


Original Message:
Sent: 05-30-2011 01:15
From: James Richard
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Creating value has been an illusive subject for our profession. How do we provide value, what differentiates us from the myriad of "allied professionals" that have eroded the identity and role of the architect, particularly in respect to design?

 

All too often the focus is placed at the pinnacle of the profession, "starchitects" or whatever trend setting firm currently in the spotlight, that they are out of touch and marginalize the profession by being irrelevant and out of touch.  Forget debating Liebskin or whether Gehry's latest is a retread, in that rarified air value takes on a whole different meaning. What is the "value" of art? That is the measure of value at that level, and if they didn't bring value they would not be as successful as they are. Debate ideology and stylistic issues all you like, the market has spoken.

 

If we want to restore value to what we do as architects, as related to design, we shouldn't be focused on the top, but the bottom. If you want to increase the value of architects through what we do, it should be by raising the bar. Instead focus on the fact that the architect up the street erected an absolute atrocity of a building that is an embarrassment to the profession. Focus on the architect that slaps yet another site adapted rubberstamped discount pharmacy on a site just cleared of a historic building. Or errecting cheap and out of scale structures to maximize the profits of a developer to the detriment of the context and community. There are many poorly designed below average buildings that corrode the fabric of our environment that are designed by architects. That's where we can establish value. We tend to turn a blind eye, yet most all commercial buildings and the fabric of our cities are designed by us in some way or another. We excuse this, but when homebuilders and contractors provide as good or better design "value" than architects, the line becomes blurred and there is no apparent value.

 

And before you say we can't do anything about it, we do control the AIA. Just about every architectural school requires a CV and portfolio of work as a requisite for acceptance; shouldn't the quality of your work be criteria for being an AIA member? Make it mean something to hire an architect, better yet an AIA member.

-------------------------------------------
James Richard AIA
Principal
Richard & Bauer Architecture LLC
Phoenix AZ
-------------------------------------------

I agree that the purpose of the COD should be to foster discussion within the profession. Legislative action to ensure the value of architecture and design is an interesting (if not quixotic) topic but not, in my opinion, the purpose of this forum.

Walter Hosack, I have two questions:
Why does pavement get such a prominent place in your definition?
Is there better and/or excellent shelter, pavement and open space?  If so, how do you measure that excellence?

-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA


Original Message:
Sent: 05-28-2011 12:22
From: Walter Hosack
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Mike,
The issue of value is one I struggled with throughout my career. The return has to be considered worth the expense and I don't think we've won the argument in the mind the public. Attorneys haven't won the argument either, but they control the process. I think the argument to mandate a seal for every building project represents a subconscious desire to emulate their methods, but the public takes the safety of buildings for granted. It's a testament to the success of the effort, but a weak foundation for the profession.

I think I'm reading that your correspondents want the public to be convinced that the goal of the profession has value that is worth the expense. Given human nature, they may never agree that it's worth the expense; but let me suggest a goal that may be considered to have value beyond the special interest of a client.

'To provide shelter, pavement and open space for human activity within natural limits that protect the survival of all life with digity"

Architects cannot achieve this goal alone, but they can lead and/or participate with the right tools and language. Architects have always led teams, but they have not always appreciated the leadership skills they take for granted. 

-------------------------------------------
Walter Hosack
Author
Walter M. Hosack
Dublin OH
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-27-2011 14:17
From: Mike Mense
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Michael
Great closing sentence.  You will see that one quoted somewhere, I promise!  I think I understand your analogies to medicine and law.  I also think there is a fair amount of consensus on the "values" that are used to judge success in those fields.  I am much less clear on architecture's values.  Can you describe some of the specific values that we should be using to recognize architectural design excellence?

-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA

Mike,

You asked two questions that I've noted in boldface below. My answers are beneath each.

 

Why does pavement get such a prominent place in your definition?

 

The intensity of shelter is based on the relationship of building mass and pavement to project open space. (Architecture is shelter and the foundation for this division of the built environment.) I have never considered parking lots, for instance, to be open space even though they allow light, air and ventilation to reach street level. Building cover and pavement cover are forms of impervious cover that are offset by open space. These relationships define balance and the weave of urban fabric. Building mass adds volume to yield urban form. We live within the intensity created.

 

There are four divisions of the built environment: shelter, movement, open space and life support. (The Open Space Division includes public open space and agriculture. Project open space is part of the Shelter Division. The built environment exists within a Built Domain that has yet to be defined, but is being carefully assessed by a Natural Domain that does not compromise with ignorance.) Pavement is contained within each division of the built environment, but I am only referring to intensity within the Shelter Division, and pavement cannot be ignored as a fundamental element of the intensity we experience, in my opinion.

Is there better and/or excellent shelter, pavement and open space? If so, how do you measure that excellence?

 

The combination of shelter, pavement and open space can be used as an architectural index to catalog research results and build knowledge with a precise measurement system. (I won't get into design specification values, but if you read one of the two essays noted below you'll see what I mean. They're on my blog at http://wmhosack.blogspot.com/

 

A universal table of intensity is presented in my blog articles, "The Nature of Intensity" and "The Leadership Potential of Intensity Measurement". All architectural projects will fall somewhere in this table. Context research is required to identify measurement implications and build knowledge. This table is based on intensity being equal to total development area (gross building area + all pavement area) divided by the project open space provided, or:

 

INT = TDA / S

 

The universal table shows the complete range of potential intensity choices, but not all choices are desirable. Context research is required to build knowledge that will add definition to these measurements. This knowledge can be used to forecast intensity options that can shelter growing populations within geographic limits. This level of architectural knowledge can contribute to a fundamental pubic issue facing future generations. It is not meant to replace traditional architectural design, but to add substance and public relevance to its arguments.

-------------------------------------------
Walter Hosack
Author
Walter M. Hosack
Dublin OH
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 05-31-2011 18:50
From: Mike Mense
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Walter Hosack, I have two questions:
Why does pavement get such a prominent place in your definition?
Is there better and/or excellent shelter, pavement and open space?  If so, how do you measure that excellence?

-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA


Original Message:
Sent: 05-28-2011 12:22
From: Walter Hosack
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Mike,
The issue of value is one I struggled with throughout my career. The return has to be considered worth the expense and I don't think we've won the argument in the mind the public. Attorneys haven't won the argument either, but they control the process. I think the argument to mandate a seal for every building project represents a subconscious desire to emulate their methods, but the public takes the safety of buildings for granted. It's a testament to the success of the effort, but a weak foundation for the profession.

I think I'm reading that your correspondents want the public to be convinced that the goal of the profession has value that is worth the expense. Given human nature, they may never agree that it's worth the expense; but let me suggest a goal that may be considered to have value beyond the special interest of a client.

'To provide shelter, pavement and open space for human activity within natural limits that protect the survival of all life with digity"

Architects cannot achieve this goal alone, but they can lead and/or participate with the right tools and language. Architects have always led teams, but they have not always appreciated the leadership skills they take for granted. 

-------------------------------------------
Walter Hosack
Author
Walter M. Hosack
Dublin OH
-------------------------------------------

I would prefer the focus of COD to remain firmly on design excellence. By that, I mean a peer to peer conversation about the cutting edge of design knowledge.
My favorite example would be that of a surgeon. A surgeon has to communicate with patients, which is certainly an important conversation.  But a surgeon can have a more professional discussion about surgery with other surgeons. The vocabulary and depth of a peer to peer discussion is entirely more advanced. The same would apply to architects, and how they talk about design.  This is a great venue for us to hold a peer to peer discussion about the cutting edge of the artistic side of what we do. 
A lot of architects seem to want to discount any conversation that is not easily understood by the public, contractors, or nondesigners. Or they want to jump to objective issues such as building codes. But in fact, if you want to learn about what great design is, and how it is done, it requires specialized, peer to peer, conversation that is very different (and at a higher level) than how we speak to nonprofessionals. Our creative side is something that can be discussed, even though many, to my amazement, continue to deny it.
The "I know it when I see it" argument is a basis of understanding I would expect to hear from a client. But that is usually an attempt to negate the possibility that design can really be discussed. Listen to any great designer talk, and it quickly becomes obvious that there is much to talk about in terms of design as tool of the art of architecture. Listent to musicians talk to each other about song writing, and there is clearly much to say about how they are trying to write better songs.  Listen to artists talk to each other about art, and there is much to say about how to create art.  But listen to architects talk to each other about design, and a majority of them will bring up a ton of distraction instead, because they seem to lack any real vocabulary for actually talking about design in and of itself. I just wish I had the ability to edit out all of the distraction commentary, so the focus on design could be more obvious, more clear, and more beneficial to others . . . at a professional level.

-------------------------------------------
Rich Farris AIA
Dallas TX
-------------------------------------------

William
I am not quite as sure as you seem to be that our clients can't understand our conversations, but I think that would take care of itself if we did manage to talk intelligently amongst ourselves about excellence in design.  I do wish you would write up, say, two or three statements or questions, that you think would be good openers for the kind of peer to peer conversation that you would like us to have.  I don't think there is any reason why that kind of conversation could not happen here and at COD conferences as well.  It sure would make me happy to listen, and maybe even contribute occasionally.
-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA
-------------------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 05-27-2011 13:05
From: William Farris
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

I would prefer the focus of COD to remain firmly on design excellence. By that, I mean a peer to peer conversation about the cutting edge of design knowledge.
My favorite example would be that of a surgeon. A surgeon has to communicate with patients, which is certainly an important conversation.  But a surgeon can have a more professional discussion about surgery with other surgeons. The vocabulary and depth of a peer to peer discussion is entirely more advanced. The same would apply to architects, and how they talk about design.  This is a great venue for us to hold a peer to peer discussion about the cutting edge of the artistic side of what we do. 
A lot of architects seem to want to discount any conversation that is not easily understood by the public, contractors, or nondesigners. Or they want to jump to objective issues such as building codes. But in fact, if you want to learn about what great design is, and how it is done, it requires specialized, peer to peer, conversation that is very different (and at a higher level) than how we speak to nonprofessionals. Our creative side is something that can be discussed, even though many, to my amazement, continue to deny it.
The "I know it when I see it" argument is a basis of understanding I would expect to hear from a client. But that is usually an attempt to negate the possibility that design can really be discussed. Listen to any great designer talk, and it quickly becomes obvious that there is much to talk about in terms of design as tool of the art of architecture. Listent to musicians talk to each other about song writing, and there is clearly much to say about how they are trying to write better songs.  Listen to artists talk to each other about art, and there is much to say about how to create art.  But listen to architects talk to each other about design, and a majority of them will bring up a ton of distraction instead, because they seem to lack any real vocabulary for actually talking about design in and of itself. I just wish I had the ability to edit out all of the distraction commentary, so the focus on design could be more obvious, more clear, and more beneficial to others . . . at a professional level.

-------------------------------------------
Rich Farris AIA
Dallas TX
-------------------------------------------

The format of this forum/thread is confusing, I think there are several linear conversations going that are difficult to respond to due to the way the responses are posted by the system, and I've received a few private responses that look as if they should have been posted to the thread. I will respond here... 

Bonnie, good to hear from you! Glad to see you still carrying the torch, and making progress. I applaud your efforts, keep fighting the good fight! (pm on its way)...

 

Here in Arizona we have been fortunate to have a selection process for public buildings that requires selection based on qualifications rather than fees. I fundamentally believe that it has been instrumental in raising both the design quality and respect for design professionals here (in the public realm at least).  Ultimately we have to negotiate reasonable fees, and if not they are free to move to the next firm on the list so it does create unreasonable fees. Could you imagine if fees were taken out of the criteria for selection on all projects? The criteria for getting the project is the quality of your work and your success with clients, and the motivation of the architect is to do better work, not figure out how to do it cheaper than the next guy.

My only frustration is that we all too often look to the outside rather than in, and that it is easier and more expedient to run the gauntlet of changing public policy and governance to create change for our profession than to make changes within it or even the AIA.

I've received a few emails related to my comments about design criteria for membership... and who amongst us is fit to judge what represents design quality or who is producing work worthy of being an architect...and herein lies the irony; isn't that what we are asking our clients, and the general public, to do on a daily basis? We are asking the public to recognize the value in the quality of what we do, yet we are reluctant to turn that same eye to ourselves.

 

Yes we have the yearly scrutiny of design awards which we subject only our best work to, but what about the rest?  A beautifully conceived and executed home behind gated walls that will rarely be seen has far less impact on the perception of architects "value" than the last strip mall or ubiquitous faceless-site-adapted-insert-name-here-corner-bank...

 

That's where the rubber meets the road.     

-------------------------------------------
James Richard AIA
Principal
Richard & Bauer Architecture LLC
Phoenix AZ
-------------------------------------------

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Residential Knowledge Community and Committee on Design .
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
John Messina AIA
Principal
John Messina . Architect
Tucson AZ
-------------------------------------------

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Residential Knowledge Community and Committee on Design .
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
John Messina AIA
Principal
John Messina . Architect
Tucson AZ
-------------------------------------------

This is where ethics comes in to play as architects. I agree, we should often say no. But there is always one maverick architect willing to say yes for whatever reason. There is also a developer who couldn't care less about the environment who will get it done no matter what.

We all face the challenge of taking a project so we can still eat or turning it down because it is not a good project. However when it comes to more big box "pollution", the answer seems obvious.

Don't sell, educate.

-------------------------------------------
Lee Calisti AIA
Principal
lee CALISTI architecture+design
Greensburg PA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 06-01-2011 13:23
From: John Messina
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Residential Knowledge Community and Committee on Design .
-------------------------------------------

<radeditorformatted_1>

In response to Jim Richard's statement concerning the bottom end of the design spectrum, what saddens me is that every big-box-in-a-parking-lot building is built with drawings that are stamped by architects. The same is true for all of the dreadful strip centers and fast-food restaurants that define major streets in most American cities. The late Phoenix architect Alfred Beadle stated, "if visual pollution were fatal, we all would be dead."  I know of no other profession, whether physician, attorney, or accountant, where the professional is restricted from doing his best. Unfortunately, architects are all too often expected to serve the low or mediocre design ambition of the client. Would it not be a true service to humanity (and ourselves) if more often than not we architects just said no? 

</radeditorformatted_1>

-------------------------------------------
John Messina AIA
Principal
John Messina . Architect
Tucson AZ
-------------------------------------------

John, while I can understand your sentiment, I think you are being naive.  Big box retail has thrived at the expense of small urban retail clusters because that is what the average person wants.  They want the low prices, convenient free parking, and large selection that the big box format offers.  Same goes with strip centers.  Even in urban centers (all thru the world, not just USA), people flock to indoor shopping malls or suburban strip or lifestyle centers.  Yes, we architects can make them better, but I do not think it is reasonable for us to turn down a whole category of work.  We do need to understand the thinking of the big box retailers, and the strip developers though.   Not every developer is evil and looking just to maximize profits, but they do need to make money to stay in business, and they do need to respond to the desires of the tenants, or they will not be developers for long.

And other professions deal with similar issues.  We are not so special. Doctors over prescribe antibiotics because  patients want them.   Accountants help clients find loopholes and limit taxes, when they could take a loftier stand and be helping the common good by having everyone pay a fair share of taxes.  (but just as architects need to give clients the services they want, or we won't find clients, accountants need to give their clients what they want too....)

-------------------------------------------
Suzan Lami AIA
Lami Grubb Architects, L.P.
Pittsburgh PA
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 06-02-2011 09:15
From: Lee Calisti
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

This is where ethics comes in to play as architects. I agree, we should often say no. But there is always one maverick architect willing to say yes for whatever reason. There is also a developer who couldn't care less about the environment who will get it done no matter what.

We all face the challenge of taking a project so we can still eat or turning it down because it is not a good project. However when it comes to more big box "pollution", the answer seems obvious.

Don't sell, educate.

-------------------------------------------
Lee Calisti AIA
Principal
lee CALISTI architecture+design
Greensburg PA
-------------------------------------------

The big box solution is not that of the Architect. There are better ways to bring retail to people obsessed with their cars. The big box is a result of bad suburban and exurban sprawl. It makes perfect sense for communities where the housing and the necessities are separated by miles of highway, but in sensible urban centers, the big box is hardly the only solution that thrives. 

Eric Rawlings said: "If you are seriously defending one of the most hideous forms that plagues our landscape, then that says it all about the Architects who allowed this model to emerge, rather than persuade the owners to do better. The problem is that the corporate Architect does what their told, generally doesn't have the chops to compete with competent Architects, and is perfectly willing to make a buck doing what they know is wrong."

On the other hand, perhaps only giving people what we think is best for them, instead of what they want--as if we always know better than they do--is one of the business models that has led to architects being less prosperous and influential, on average, than professionals who adopt a less patronizing attitude. Do we really think the opinion of any number of architects is going to stop a developer from having his way?

-------------------------------------------
Sean Catherall, AIA
Herriman, UT
-------------------------------------------



Original Message:
Sent: 06-06-2011 07:41
From: Eric Rawlings
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

The big box solution is not that of the Architect. There are better ways to bring retail to people obsessed with their cars. The big box is a result of bad suburban and exurban sprawl. It makes perfect sense for communities where the housing and the necessities are separated by miles of highway, but in sensible urban centers, the big box is hardly the only solution that thrives. 

I think the mention of big box stores and their evolution in American society was brought up because of what a lousy solution it really is and the end result is always an ugly box. If you are seriously defending one of the most hideous forms that plagues our landscape, then that says it all about the Architects who allowed this model to emerge, rather than persuade the owners to do better. The problem is that the corporate Architect does what their told, generally doesn't have the chops to compete with competent Architects, and is perfectly willing to make a buck doing what they know is wrong. Yes, I said it.

The accountant analogy is a nice way to justify a job with questionable ethics, but it's not the accountant that creates tax code, so it's no their fault for our country's lack of revenue. Talk to Congress. The big box owner dictates the design parameters based on corporate analysis of how to extract money from people's pockets. The Architect is not doing their best job to utilize these parameters in a creative way to produce a competent result, they design a lazy, ugly box. You can't seriously tell all of the Architects in America that there is an excuse for the absolute worst building/ development model in America. Do what you have to do to find projects today, but don't try to paint a rosy picture of one of the worst visual polluters, the worst perpetrators of sprawl, and the continued devolution of development. It was suburbia that freaked out when the gas dried up in Atlanta a few years back, not the urban centers. I can walk to all necessities in the same time that it takes for most to walk to the entrance of their subdivision, only to meet a highway with no sidewalks. At one time in Cobb county (home of Newt), it was illegal to put sidewalks in a subdivision. The zoning laws that caused all this sprawl and encouraged us to drive unnecessarily came out in 1982 in GA, when the petroleum party was fighting back against the formation of the EPA.

It's amazing how people rush to defend things they know are wrong, as many are doing so out of guilt for participating. You know, like we defend a broken Health Care system and blame our problems on MediCare, welfare for oil companies, and rich folks not pitching in a dime of sacrifice while we take out our budget problems on the middle and poor. There's a rationale for anything these days. If you don't think about it makes perfect sense.

-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------

Hmmm ... the responses have given me a lot to think about. I very much regret my "bottom end of the talent pool" comment. That was a gross generalization and I definitely did not mean to denegrate those who design in the merchant housing industry. I have made a few bucks there and on a strip center or three in the past myself - we all need to eat right! So, sorry, that was probably unfair. I know there are a lot of very talented people doing the best job they can given the system that is in place (as pointed out by John Messina).

Unfortunately, these systems that are in place also (generally, mind you) reward the cheapest designer, the cheapest constructor, etc. The owner typically gets the same rent for this type of building whether the building is beautiful and full of quality or ugly and cheaply built (rent is more a function of where than what in these cases). It is very similar to the appraisal problem that was being discussed by Eric Rawlings. It is another system that does not reward those who dare to be better. This is a huge social dilemma which seems to be particularly prevelent when it comes to the biggest and most important things we buy and sell - real estate.

Consumers seem to be able to differentiate between a BMW, Toyota and a Ford, but not a custom built house, a spec house and merchant housing. Business owners generally drive nice cars and often even pay for nice homes, but don't often differentiate between the poorly designed and built building shell they rent for as cheap as they can and something better. Why is that? It has something to do with their personal values and the way they percieve value.

I remember hearing about some studies Walmart did a number of years ago where they experimented with making their stores nicer - sales actually went down because the perception was that the products must not be as good a deal anymore (even though they hadn't changed their pricing strategy at all). Perceptions are at the root of the problems we all lament - appraiser perceptions, consumer perceptions, ownership perceptions, perhaps even our own perceptions as architects are part of the problem.

Any thoughts??? Maybe this is delving too deep to be productive.

-------------------------------------------
John Richert AIA
Owner
Crossroads Design, Inc.
Lake Forest IL
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 06-01-2011 13:23
From: John Messina
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Residential Knowledge Community and Committee on Design .
-------------------------------------------

In response to Jim Richard's statement concerning the bottom end of the design spectrum, what saddens me is that every big-box-in-a-parking-lot building is built with drawings that are stamped by architects. The same is true for all of the dreadful strip centers and fast-food restaurants that define major streets in most American cities. The late Phoenix architect Alfred Beadle stated, "if visual pollution were fatal, we all would be dead."  I know of no other profession, whether physician, attorney, or accountant, where the professional is restricted from doing his best. Unfortunately, architects are all too often expected to serve the low or mediocre design ambition of the client. Would it not be a true service to humanity (and ourselves) if more often than not we architects just said no? 

-------------------------------------------
John Messina AIA
Principal
John Messina . Architect
Tucson AZ
-------------------------------------------

John Richert said: "Consumers seem to be able to differentiate between a BMW, Toyota and a Ford, but not a custom built house, a spec house and merchant housing. Business owners generally drive nice cars and often even pay for nice homes, but don't often differentiate between the poorly designed and built building shell they rent for as cheap as they can and something better. Why is that? It has something to do with their personal values and the way they percieve value."

That may be true of a subset of all consumers, but certainly not true of all and perhaps not even true of a majority. The problem, as pointed out by one of our very astute colleagues, is that the system of appraisal and funding that determines how much capital will be made availalable to that consumer is not capable of differentiating between the poorly designed and the well-designed. Whose responsibility is it to be leaders of the community in educating the public? Who can catalyze changes in the appraisal and funding mechanisms? If not us, who? If not now, when?

-------------------------------------------
Sean Catherall, AIA
Herriman, UT
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 06-03-2011 17:07
From: John Richert
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Hmmm ... the responses have given me a lot to think about. I very much regret my "bottom end of the talent pool" comment. That was a gross generalization and I definitely did not mean to denegrate those who design in the merchant housing industry. I have made a few bucks there and on a strip center or three in the past myself - we all need to eat right! So, sorry, that was probably unfair. I know there are a lot of very talented people doing the best job they can given the system that is in place (as pointed out by John Messina).

Unfortunately, these systems that are in place also (generally, mind you) reward the cheapest designer, the cheapest constructor, etc. The owner typically gets the same rent for this type of building whether the building is beautiful and full of quality or ugly and cheaply built (rent is more a function of where than what in these cases). It is very similar to the appraisal problem that was being discussed by Eric Rawlings. It is another system that does not reward those who dare to be better. This is a huge social dilemma which seems to be particularly prevelent when it comes to the biggest and most important things we buy and sell - real estate.

Consumers seem to be able to differentiate between a BMW, Toyota and a Ford, but not a custom built house, a spec house and merchant housing. Business owners generally drive nice cars and often even pay for nice homes, but don't often differentiate between the poorly designed and built building shell they rent for as cheap as they can and something better. Why is that? It has something to do with their personal values and the way they percieve value.

I remember hearing about some studies Walmart did a number of years ago where they experimented with making their stores nicer - sales actually went down because the perception was that the products must not be as good a deal anymore (even though they hadn't changed their pricing strategy at all). Perceptions are at the root of the problems we all lament - appraiser perceptions, consumer perceptions, ownership perceptions, perhaps even our own perceptions as architects are part of the problem.

Any thoughts??? Maybe this is delving too deep to be productive.

-------------------------------------------
John Richert AIA
Owner
Crossroads Design, Inc.
Lake Forest IL
-------------------------------------------

Great discussion and excellent points.  While I tend to most align with the sentiment of Suzan Lami AIA when she states "other professions deal with similar issues.  We are not so special", I know that surveys consistently show that we are among the most respected professions in the eyes of the public at large.  

In the end what strikes me most about this and other on-line conversations between architects is how articulate and insightful "we" are in speaking with each other. 

I suspect the most promising avenue to effecting change in the valuation of our contributions to society as professionals is to be equally articulate in media that is in the public eye.  Incremental change in perception on what we as a profession have to offer the 'common man' is a long and twisting path - that will be populated by both specific examples, as well as clear and articulate exposition.  The 'holy grail' of the AIA membership has been shown in survey after survey to be Public Relations; and that is a frontier which deserves a focused attention at all levels of the organization.

Cheers

-------------------------------------------
Michael Malinowski AIA
2010 AIACC VP of Communication and Public Affairs
Applied Architecture, Inc.
Sacramento CA
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 06-06-2011 00:34
From: Sean Catherall
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

John Richert said: "Consumers seem to be able to differentiate between a BMW, Toyota and a Ford, but not a custom built house, a spec house and merchant housing. Business owners generally drive nice cars and often even pay for nice homes, but don't often differentiate between the poorly designed and built building shell they rent for as cheap as they can and something better. Why is that? It has something to do with their personal values and the way they percieve value."

That may be true of a subset of all consumers, but certainly not true of all and perhaps not even true of a majority. The problem, as pointed out by one of our very astute colleagues, is that the system of appraisal and funding that determines how much capital will be made availalable to that consumer is not capable of differentiating between the poorly designed and the well-designed. Whose responsibility is it to be leaders of the community in educating the public? Who can catalyze changes in the appraisal and funding mechanisms? If not us, who? If not now, when?

-------------------------------------------
Sean Catherall, AIA
Herriman, UT
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 06-03-2011 17:07
From: John Richert
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Hmmm ... the responses have given me a lot to think about. I very much regret my "bottom end of the talent pool" comment. That was a gross generalization and I definitely did not mean to denegrate those who design in the merchant housing industry. I have made a few bucks there and on a strip center or three in the past myself - we all need to eat right! So, sorry, that was probably unfair. I know there are a lot of very talented people doing the best job they can given the system that is in place (as pointed out by John Messina).

Unfortunately, these systems that are in place also (generally, mind you) reward the cheapest designer, the cheapest constructor, etc. The owner typically gets the same rent for this type of building whether the building is beautiful and full of quality or ugly and cheaply built (rent is more a function of where than what in these cases). It is very similar to the appraisal problem that was being discussed by Eric Rawlings. It is another system that does not reward those who dare to be better. This is a huge social dilemma which seems to be particularly prevelent when it comes to the biggest and most important things we buy and sell - real estate.

Consumers seem to be able to differentiate between a BMW, Toyota and a Ford, but not a custom built house, a spec house and merchant housing. Business owners generally drive nice cars and often even pay for nice homes, but don't often differentiate between the poorly designed and built building shell they rent for as cheap as they can and something better. Why is that? It has something to do with their personal values and the way they percieve value.

I remember hearing about some studies Walmart did a number of years ago where they experimented with making their stores nicer - sales actually went down because the perception was that the products must not be as good a deal anymore (even though they hadn't changed their pricing strategy at all). Perceptions are at the root of the problems we all lament - appraiser perceptions, consumer perceptions, ownership perceptions, perhaps even our own perceptions as architects are part of the problem.

Any thoughts??? Maybe this is delving too deep to be productive.

-------------------------------------------
John Richert AIA
Owner
Crossroads Design, Inc.
Lake Forest IL
-------------------------------------------

Following up on Sean Catheral's question .  .  . "Who can catalyze changes in the appraisal and funding mechanisms?"
How about going after this (via our AIA lobbying efforts) with mathematics, or more specifically applied statistics? First, prove that the quantitative algorithms of the real estate appraisal system are inherently flawed. To accomplish that, use empirical data gained through various new and existing surveys to create a probability distribution curve that quantifies the value added (or not) to a structure by a licensed architect vs. the other TBD relevant classifications (big hole there, but still). A "Design Level Factor" or a similarly named index could be added to appraisal algorithm current standards. This way, the final appraisal figure is adjusted for a higher level of accuracy. The battle is not fought over the stamping of drawings, which would involve too many overlapping jurisdictional entities, but with a more direct and provable mechanism - appraisal value. 
Then, the baseline system of property appraisal that can potentially diminish our value - is effectively re-tooled to enhance it.
Does anyone of any similar past efforts at effecting appraisal value?

-------------------------------------------
Gene Greene, Assoc. AIA
Historic Preservation Specialist/Project Designer
Ekman Design Studio, Inc.
Denver CO
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 06-06-2011 00:34
From: Sean Catherall
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

John Richert said: "Consumers seem to be able to differentiate between a BMW, Toyota and a Ford, but not a custom built house, a spec house and merchant housing. Business owners generally drive nice cars and often even pay for nice homes, but don't often differentiate between the poorly designed and built building shell they rent for as cheap as they can and something better. Why is that? It has something to do with their personal values and the way they percieve value."

That may be true of a subset of all consumers, but certainly not true of all and perhaps not even true of a majority. The problem, as pointed out by one of our very astute colleagues, is that the system of appraisal and funding that determines how much capital will be made availalable to that consumer is not capable of differentiating between the poorly designed and the well-designed. Whose responsibility is it to be leaders of the community in educating the public? Who can catalyze changes in the appraisal and funding mechanisms? If not us, who? If not now, when?

-------------------------------------------
Sean Catherall, AIA
Herriman, UT
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 06-03-2011 17:07
From: John Richert
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

Hmmm ... the responses have given me a lot to think about. I very much regret my "bottom end of the talent pool" comment. That was a gross generalization and I definitely did not mean to denegrate those who design in the merchant housing industry. I have made a few bucks there and on a strip center or three in the past myself - we all need to eat right! So, sorry, that was probably unfair. I know there are a lot of very talented people doing the best job they can given the system that is in place (as pointed out by John Messina).

Unfortunately, these systems that are in place also (generally, mind you) reward the cheapest designer, the cheapest constructor, etc. The owner typically gets the same rent for this type of building whether the building is beautiful and full of quality or ugly and cheaply built (rent is more a function of where than what in these cases). It is very similar to the appraisal problem that was being discussed by Eric Rawlings. It is another system that does not reward those who dare to be better. This is a huge social dilemma which seems to be particularly prevelent when it comes to the biggest and most important things we buy and sell - real estate.

Consumers seem to be able to differentiate between a BMW, Toyota and a Ford, but not a custom built house, a spec house and merchant housing. Business owners generally drive nice cars and often even pay for nice homes, but don't often differentiate between the poorly designed and built building shell they rent for as cheap as they can and something better. Why is that? It has something to do with their personal values and the way they percieve value.

I remember hearing about some studies Walmart did a number of years ago where they experimented with making their stores nicer - sales actually went down because the perception was that the products must not be as good a deal anymore (even though they hadn't changed their pricing strategy at all). Perceptions are at the root of the problems we all lament - appraiser perceptions, consumer perceptions, ownership perceptions, perhaps even our own perceptions as architects are part of the problem.

Any thoughts??? Maybe this is delving too deep to be productive.

-------------------------------------------
John Richert AIA
Owner
Crossroads Design, Inc.
Lake Forest IL
-------------------------------------------

There are fundamental flaws in the appraisal system that are simple mathematics. Comparative analysis generates a "Subject" value based on the average of comparable properties that have sold recently. The fundamental problem with this is that you can never appraise a house as the most expensive or least expensive due to the nature of "averages". This is to say that you can't build a better or worse house than what already exists. How this affects folks like me and maybe you, is that my projects are the highest comps in the neighborhood. 

Mike,

Thanks for starting the conversation.  I think it was Charles Moore who said 'being creative is never revealing your sources' - of course not revealing who he was quoting.

 

I think design excellence is a lifetime pursuit for anyone seriously interested in designing buildings.  To define excellence is elusive because it can not be codified and is subject to all of the machinations of the human spirit.  The definition of excellence does, and should, vary widely.  People and places are different, different situations demand different solutions.  Design homogenization is dull and not realistic - good for milk, not for architecture. 

 

With that said - we only improve our work by constantly pursuing how to make it better.  Better work leads to more work, and influences others to do better - we all rise together.  Improving comes from practice and learning from others.  That is where I think COD plays a valuable role.  We all read, we visit buildings, but COD provides an opportunity to visit a wide variety of buildings in one place that many others consider excellent.  It also gives you the opportunity to converse with a diverse talented group about how to be more thoughtful about your own work.  

 

Each of us will have different needs or interests - I for one struggle with detailing curtain walls that are beautiful, sustainable and affordable.  I am always looking for better ideas that will help me invent a better solution for a given situation. I can learn from other knowledge communities about sustainability and how to plan a better school but COD is the one group that considers how to bring all the demands on architecture together in a way that is beautiful, lifts the human spirit, and actually gets built - not a small thing.

 

In the end, for me, the eternal question is not so much 'what is excellent' but 'how can I make the next one better?"

 

Two ideas that might improve discourse and disseminate ideas to a wider audience. 

 

1.  What I learned - Following an idea from a previous post I suggest starting a blog accessed from the COD website (a blog because it can contain images, is searchable, and provides a vehicle for response - unlike the COD website) where posts are submitted by those attending conferences.  We will solicit a few paragraphs, along with images, from participants about a building we visit and the ideas they learned.    

 

2.  Mike's idea - Include a forum at each conference that brings in a few very articulate people to talk about that years topic but with a focus on how to make our work better.  Record the ideas and make available to all. 

 

My two cents, thanks Mike,   Jim

 

 

-------------------------------------------
James Childress FAIA
Partner
Centerbrook Architects & Planners
Centerbrook CT
-------------------------------------------

In order to forward the general agenda of design excellence: What if local or state components' COD's offered a design charette in which a real-world project at some stage of design could undergo a critique in which helpful suggestions for design improvement were offered by the project designer's (presumably an AIA member) peers? This would be an opportunity to "give back" to the architectural community, a tangible benefit of membership and an incentive for clients to hire AIA-member architects. It would offer participants an opportunity for professional exposure, both for those engaged as critics and for those exposing their work to be critiqued. Further exposure, both public and within the profession, could result from publishing the work, the commentary and any resultant design changes. If such opportunities were available in a large metropolitan area, we might be able to convince some communities to consider requiring major projects to undergo such charettes as a condition of obtaining a building permit in lieu of review by a design review board or committee. This would be a significant feather in the cap of the AIA and specifically the AIA COD.

Are we too competitive with one another for this kind of thing? Are we too proud and sensitive about our work to expose it to criticism?

-------------------------------------------
Sean Catherall, AIA
Herriman, UT
-------------------------------------------

MONETIZING ARCHITECTURAL VALUE

 

            Design matters, but can the value be monetized to serve an entire profession? Practitioners matter. Knowledge, education and talent matter, but architecture is a collection of city states competing for survival. Fewer survivors mean better odds; but a lone wolf will not thrive without the pack. Many things matter in life, but not all can monetize their value. I hate speaking in these terms; but it is the language of the free market. It has not adequately defined responsibility, depends on a low bid to define value and promotes excessive competition on playing fields ruled by political referees.

 

            In Pogo's words, for those old enough to remember, the problem is us. State seal laws have done little to monetize value because they do not address competition. Expanding these laws to include single and two-family housing units may expand the potential market but do little to monetize value, given our current business model and competitive instincts.

 

            Medicine promoted insurance to monetize value. The law controls justice to monetize value and other professions search for similar adantage. It appears to me, therefore, that architecture matters, not to mention design; but that the real question is how to monetize its value without violating the law. (As an aside, I don't believe that the slogan, "design matters", works to achieve this goal. If anything, it promotes unlicensed designers. I prefer "architecture matters", since design is often equated in the public mind with felt tips and crayons, but this is another issue.)

 

            If the objective is to win a public commitment to architecture, then what does architecture have to offer? It can only recommend. It cannot oppose owner decisions that affect the public interest without the risk of losing a valuable client. This is why building and zoning codes were imposed. They are still met with disdain by some because of their imperfections, but I don't think that architects are perceived as contributing to their improvement.

 

            The bottom line is that architecture and city planning are not in control of a process that is consuming the face of the planet with sprawl. The antidote to sprawl is intensity, but it has been a mysterious word without adequate definition. Intensity options within geographic limits however, are the only way to contain sprawl and shelter growing populations while protecting an irreplaceable natural partner. Architects will provide an invaluable service when they can translate design decisions into intensity options that make better use of the development capacity of land. The goal is to improve the physical, social, psychological and economic quality of life within sustainable geographic limits. An architect who can lead this effort with the knowledge required will have no problem monetizing his or her value when the right business model for the profession supports the effort.

 

            At the present time architects borrow engineering knowledge. Design knowledge is considered a fine art. Intensity translation, however, can provide the vocabulary and language needed to give design the voice required within public forums, since it must convincingly argue that it can lead shelter and urban form along the path to a sustainable future with dignity. At this point, the relationship between public benefit and special interest will be clear, but architects must argue for the authority required to lead the effort. Until then, design recommendations will remain a captive of special interest, city design will appear unrealistic, public value will not be monetized and public benefit will be derived from the minimum standards of third party legislation.  

-------------------------------------------
Walter Hosack
Author
Walter M. Hosack
Dublin OH
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 06-02-2011 10:40
From: Sean Catherall
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

In order to forward the general agenda of design excellence: What if local or state components' COD's offered a design charette in which a real-world project at some stage of design could undergo a critique in which helpful suggestions for design improvement were offered by the project designer's (presumably an AIA member) peers? This would be an opportunity to "give back" to the architectural community, a tangible benefit of membership and an incentive for clients to hire AIA-member architects. It would offer participants an opportunity for professional exposure, both for those engaged as critics and for those exposing their work to be critiqued. Further exposure, both public and within the profession, could result from publishing the work, the commentary and any resultant design changes. If such opportunities were available in a large metropolitan area, we might be able to convince some communities to consider requiring major projects to undergo such charettes as a condition of obtaining a building permit in lieu of review by a design review board or committee. This would be a significant feather in the cap of the AIA and specifically the AIA COD.

Are we too competitive with one another for this kind of thing? Are we too proud and sensitive about our work to expose it to criticism?

-------------------------------------------
Sean Catherall, AIA
Herriman, UT
-------------------------------------------

Thanks for pulling us back to your basic question, Mike.  I thought we were having a lot of great discussion - not much of which was really pertinent to your essential question.

Response to Sean Catherall, I think this is a fine idea and it should be pursued.  I believe a certain form of it already occurs on projects going the GSA's design excellence program.  I am going to forward your ideas to all of the local committees on design that I know about in hopes that some of them will try it and get back to us with the results.
By the way, if we are not willing to submit our work to peer review, it is not because we are too proud, but rather because we are not proud enough!
-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA
Owner
mmenseArchitect
Anchorage AK


Original Message:
Sent: 06-02-2011 10:40
From: Sean Catherall
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin

In order to forward the general agenda of design excellence: What if local or state components' COD's offered a design charette in which a real-world project at some stage of design could undergo a critique in which helpful suggestions for design improvement were offered by the project designer's (presumably an AIA member) peers? This would be an opportunity to "give back" to the architectural community, a tangible benefit of membership and an incentive for clients to hire AIA-member architects. It would offer participants an opportunity for professional exposure, both for those engaged as critics and for those exposing their work to be critiqued. Further exposure, both public and within the profession, could result from publishing the work, the commentary and any resultant design changes. If such opportunities were available in a large metropolitan area, we might be able to convince some communities to consider requiring major projects to undergo such charettes as a condition of obtaining a building permit in lieu of review by a design review board or committee. This would be a significant feather in the cap of the AIA and specifically the AIA COD.

Are we too competitive with one another for this kind of thing? Are we too proud and sensitive about our work to expose it to criticism?

-------------------------------------------
Sean Catherall, AIA
Herriman, UT
-------------------------------------------