Committee on Design

What I find very interesting here is the seemingly lack of consensus on what constitutes "design," not withstanding the qualification of "good design." Historically, award winning designs in the US have failed miserably in the past, and there are instances in the present that indicating that continuing to be the case. So what are the qualities of design that we should be fostering other than "publication worthy" (a purely subjective term practiced only by the publishers - and "friends) projects. I think that in the minds of many public and client considerate architects, there are many projects more deserving of recognition than what shows up in professional journals.

And don't get me started on the continuing education requirements the AIA and other "professional organizations" have come to understand  as a means of supporting their financial coffers. So many credit-able courses have been nothing more than "isn't that cute." But I do find some that are very credit worthy offerings that are prepared by others than the AIA, but AIA approved.

This is an interesting thread that is garnering a lot of worthy dialogue. 

I see that I have an e-mail from Robert Ivy concerning "repositioning the Institute." It is going to be interesting to see where that thinking is at present!

I appreciate Mike Mene's comments, and I would like this committee to discuss today's meaning of client worthy design; not design lauded only by architects.     

-------------------------------------------
George Jennings AIA
G Booker 3
Tappahannock VA
-------------------------------------------

As usual, I prefer to defend all the prima donnas out there, making beautiful, publication worthy buildings, mainly adored by other architects. For starters, I see no foundation whatsoever that cutting edge designs are failing. Failing at what? I could just as easily argue that millions of unattractive, unpublishable buildings are failing all the time.
If cutting edge work has a lower batting average, and it's not clear they do, but if they do, it is most likely because they are taking risks. I tend to have more respect for an architect taking some worthy risks over one who has no courage to do anything more than copy the past.
It is our professional obligation to educate all clients on design, so more courageous work can get built. If a great designer gets a cutting edge design built, he (or she) obviously found a client who wanted it or allowed it. So it would be completely baseless to argue he was any less "client considerate" than any other architect. Kudos to him for selling great design and getting it built. Let him be the primary example for the rest. He's earned it. 

-------------------------------------------
Rich Farris, AIA
Author of "Principles of Creativity, Architecture's Insight to Invention" (Amazon)
Dallas, Texas
-------------------------------------------

I find it encouraging that someone (George Jennings) is addressing the basic issue of the purpose of design. I would think that would be one of the primary foci of this committee of design leaders, particularly at a time when all of our clients and users (the society that priveleges us to practice) are struggling to reddefine themselves for the changed economy.
The purpose of design must be seen in light of societies' needs if it is to be relevant. A time of turmoil such as now is an ideal time to provide leadership in designing for change and the new economy.

Maitaining our obligation to design functional and safe buildings, and adding to that the concern for sustainability in the rather narrow construct in which it is generally seen is but a timid staring point for relevant purpose. Even adding the essential elements of awakening and inspiring the human spirit is inadequate to the real needs, and to justifying the huge resources we commit with our building designs. A more worthy and useful to society and client aspiration would include transforming performance, improving place and context, achievement with minimum essential and sustainable resources, and very importantly affordability in all forms of resources, both client and societal.

Now that is a dialogue worth having and one which might seem wortwhile to those we serve.

-------------------------------------------
James Jonassen FAIA, author Designing the Design Firm
NBBJ: Seattle
Seattle WA
-------------------------------------------

I wanted to weigh in again on this subject, because I agree on many of the points made. 

I have no problem with a group of members going on an AIA sanctioned trip as long as it doesn't take away resources from higher priorities, which the COD conferences don't anymore.  However, I think that COD can and should play a larger role in fulfilling the mission of the Institute.

For instance, they could facilitate a national discussion on the value of good design by engaging stakeholders, most of whom are non-architects.  This could be doe through a number of town halls and/or think tank type sessions.  What are clients looking for?  How can architects provide demonstratable ROI to them?  What makes good design?

I have advocated for COD to do a series of interviews with Gold Medal winners that could be turned into a series of "Ted" type programs.  What is their design philosophy?  What makes them worthy of this high honor and what can we learn from them?

We recognize buildings as award winners every year, but do we talk about them from the users perspective?  Yes, they are beautiful, but buildings have a practical purpose.  What is that story?  What problems were solved?  What was the architect's process and what was the client's experience? 

In short, we need to focus outward, not just introspectively.  That is the challenge for the Institute and COD can and should pay attention to that.

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







Original Message:
Sent: 07-25-2012 17:25
From: James Jonassen
Subject: Design and Continuing Education

I find it encouraging that someone (George Jennings) is addressing the basic issue of the purpose of design. I would think that would be one of the primary foci of this committee of design leaders, particularly at a time when all of our clients and users (the society that priveleges us to practice) are struggling to reddefine themselves for the changed economy.
The purpose of design must be seen in light of societies' needs if it is to be relevant. A time of turmoil such as now is an ideal time to provide leadership in designing for change and the new economy.

Maitaining our obligation to design functional and safe buildings, and adding to that the concern for sustainability in the rather narrow construct in which it is generally seen is but a timid staring point for relevant purpose. Even adding the essential elements of awakening and inspiring the human spirit is inadequate to the real needs, and to justifying the huge resources we commit with our building designs. A more worthy and useful to society and client aspiration would include transforming performance, improving place and context, achievement with minimum essential and sustainable resources, and very importantly affordability in all forms of resources, both client and societal.

Now that is a dialogue worth having and one which might seem wortwhile to those we serve.

-------------------------------------------
James Jonassen FAIA, author Designing the Design Firm
NBBJ: Seattle
Seattle WA
-------------------------------------------

Walter
Thanks for your suggestions.  I hope we can implement many of them if not all.  I have forwarded your message to all of the current members of our Advisory Group.
Mikr

-------------------------------------------
Mike Mense FAIA
Owner
mmenseArchitects
Anchorage AK
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 07-26-2012 11:11
From: Walter Hainsfurther
Subject: Design and Continuing Education

I wanted to weigh in again on this subject, because I agree on many of the points made. 

I have no problem with a group of members going on an AIA sanctioned trip as long as it doesn't take away resources from higher priorities, which the COD conferences don't anymore.  However, I think that COD can and should play a larger role in fulfilling the mission of the Institute.

For instance, they could facilitate a national discussion on the value of good design by engaging stakeholders, most of whom are non-architects.  This could be doe through a number of town halls and/or think tank type sessions.  What are clients looking for?  How can architects provide demonstratable ROI to them?  What makes good design?

I have advocated for COD to do a series of interviews with Gold Medal winners that could be turned into a series of "Ted" type programs.  What is their design philosophy?  What makes them worthy of this high honor and what can we learn from them?

We recognize buildings as award winners every year, but do we talk about them from the users perspective?  Yes, they are beautiful, but buildings have a practical purpose.  What is that story?  What problems were solved?  What was the architect's process and what was the client's experience? 

In short, we need to focus outward, not just introspectively.  That is the challenge for the Institute and COD can and should pay attention to that.

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