Committee on Design

This isn't news to most readers, but with all this discussion of the relationship between art and science in design, I'm sharing some personal observations from practice regarding this relationship.

As many of us who are designing buildings with the intent to have them LEED certified are discovering, science is increasingly a significant factor in design, whether we employ evidence-based methods or prefer to design purely from inspiration, or somewhere in between. In fact, while the measurement of energy savings, water-use reduction, percentage of recycled materials, or access to natural daylight are normally conclusions of some aspects of design performance, designers are increasingly anticipating these measurements earlier in the process.

This anticipation is actually changing the design process. Even though I, like many other architects, have always considered sustainability as a significant part of design, the actual measurement of the results, and an increasing requirement to meet performance criteria (LEED or EnergyStar, etc.), has increased the role of science in the design process. When I was an academic, I always knew that the observation and measurement of conditions actually changes the conditions. So it makes sense that this would be true for practice as well.

For many architects and engineers involved in very large buildings, measurement and verification of performance has been part of the process for more than half a century. But for most architects designing buildings less than 100,000 s.f., performance has been managed through specifications, but measurement to confirm performance has not always been required. Now that it is increasingly a requirement, we are paying much more attention to the performance criteria and designing to it--and that is actually changing form, space, and order on a massive scale.

I don't believe this change has decreased the role of art in design, in fact, it seems to be challenging architects to be even more artistically creative. So I could conclude that the increasing role of science in design is raising the entire bar for architecture.

-------------------------------------------
David Clarke AIA, Senior Architect
Williams Design Group, Inc., Las Cruces NM
President-Elect AIA New Mexico Southern Chapter
-------------------------------------------

But my fear is these increasing technical requirements make it harder and harder for some to manage all of that information and remain creative. They had it hard enough before, figuring out how to be creative.  This sorta pushes them over the cliff. They get overwhelmed with the small engineering facts to the point where they don't know how to manipulate them effectively with incongruent visual invention. The end up using the technology as a crutch, hoping it will bail them out of not being able to generate valid abstract ideas to carry the story. 

I have toured some Platinum rated LEED projects where the design was just as mundane as any other building. The fact that it was well engineered had very little positive impact on the architectural creativity. Other than some nice shading devices on the windows, the only clue I was even in such a building was the view I got from the mechanical room. Where was the architect?  The problem remains the same. If they don't work on how to transport all that technical information in a comprehensive visual language, then they have not done their primary job. 

LEED certification is a great thing, but on it's own, it's not necessarily a measure of great 'architecture.'  It's more of a measure of great sustainability and great engineering.  But how we measure great architecture is far more abstract, because our core skills are far less objective. At least that's how I feel about it. I'm sure the hyper-rationalists will never agree with me. I have some  major goals to reingineer my own home.  But I don't consider that architecture.  I already have the technology figured out.  That's the easy part.  The hard part will be the package I want to design to carry it all. My goals there are far loftier.

To steal the words of Peter Eisenman, he defines an architect as a designer who is capable of theorizing about their work.  And in his opinion, there are extremely few who can, or do. [You can find his quote on You-Tube. He's very amusing, as always. I just love his attitude.]

I would probably say it a little differently than he does, but I see his point, and fundamentally agree with it.

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