Studio Launch

"A site for all your reading disorders"

"Inappropriate books for children."  OK, so that's the title that blog writers Lane Smith and Bob Shea tag their blog with.  It probably drives some sort of traffic, but I haven't found too much that would be actually inappropriate.  (Maybe that says more about me than the site.)  And, as a warning, I haven't traversed the entire site nor, will I show it to my kids until I do.

But what I did find is a wonderful collection of graphically rich book illustrations that are good for the designer's eye.  Below are just a couple examples from one book featured recently.

 

    

"A site for all your reading disorders," they propose...consider the therapy complete.

>>> To go to the blog- click here

Where there's a will...postscript 2

I once visited (interviewed) with a design Principal at HOK in St. Louis in search of a design position.  Having done plenty of interviews with job applicants myself I was not prepared for what finally was revealed to me as his approach to finding architects/designers who would be the right people to help his company achieve what he felt were very high goals for the quality of the designs they produced.

In architecture, the portfolio has almost mythic status in its ability to represent an applicant's skills, talents, and experience.  Everyone carries their work with them in portfolios of all kinds, many handmade with loving care representing the architect's care in every detail.  Interviews are spent with the interviewer pouring over the pages of the portfolio, sometimes for over an hour, soaking in what is usually a representation of a variety of projects, drawings, models painstakingly presented, page by page...

He, didn't want to see my portfolio.  Not at all.

We talked.  I wondered.  We talked some more.  Two hours passed.

Finally he revealed to me his strategy.  Never look at a person's portfolio the first interview.  Save that for the second interview, or the third.  Focus on one thing and one thing only.  Use the conversation to determine if this person has the "will" to do great design.  Period.

In his opinion, skill sets, can be improved with training and experience.  But if the candidate doesn't have the will to do great design, none of the rest matters...

Think he's right?  Or can we believe that people can evolve over time and through their experiences see new paths to their contribution to design that they simply couldn't see before?  And through this new "sight" could they become more confident and emboldened to work harder at creating great things?

Where there's a will...

...yes you know how to finish that one.

Recently, an architect told me that they didn't feel a particular need to do great design work.  And I was, well, astonished.  And, I wondered, but why not?  To argue against design seems to argue against quality, against improving our place on this earth.  Design makes things better.  Design solves problems.  Design makes for the best environment we can have.  What's not to like about this?

If I were to pose this question to the Architect who does not need to pursue great designs, I think the answer would be simply, the cost is too high.  Now cost in this case means either hardship, or stress, or discomfort...  Because as we all know (right) its not a great design (right) unless it meets its budget and can be built well.  RIght?  Right.

And this is where we can use the old quote from Michelangelo:

“The greater danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.”

Pamela Slim describes it from a more personal perspective, "Work...is the way you translate your feelings, your thoughts, your hopes and your desires into something valuable, tangible and useful every day. You can choose to make work into a dreaded, necessary evil that you can't wait to finish so that you can get busy with your 'real life.' Why not just do work you love?"

Now I think this is a fine position.  But the next thing she says probably comes closer to answering my questions of why not?  And gives a hint into the reason why my associate says achieving great design is not that important.

"Fear is the great inhibitor. All of the excuses that you find for not doing work you love have solutions. You do not enact them because you are afraid: of showing up too big in the world; of failing; of appearing as an imposter; of living in poverty."

Ahhh, I think we are getting closer.  So if you have studio-mates that think like my associate.  And you decide, as I have, to help them past their fear of design.  Consider Pamela's recommendation, "There is nothing wrong with fear. Feel it, talk to it, examine it and walk with it. Then step out and let yourself show up, warts and all. It will liberate you."

And maybe give me some suggestions on how to help these folks see this wisdom.

Genus Loci

To sink ones hands into the spice box of earth
Is to glimpse the core religious mystery of dying and rising.
To stand at the edge where land and water meet,
in either cataclysmic exchange or a gentle embrace
is to sense the creating energy of the divine presence
at the first sunrise.
Geography produces its own spirituality.
The earth is a worthy vessel revealing the numinous.

Author unknown

Pop Comfort Over Ambition

How do we measure design? How do we measure the value, or contribution of a design or anything in the arts for that matter?

I am reminded of this article I read sometime after the first of the year called Pop Comfort Over Ambition and published in the New York Times Arts Pages, Critic’s Notebook. In the article, Jon Pareles concerns himself with pop music, but his critique could easily apply to the consideration of other arts including architecture. He describes the music of 2005 as “unheroic and unambitious.” He talks of a public that votes with its dollars; a public who ignores the favorites championed by critics.  Entertainment, not ambition, he says, is the priority.

He laments that major recording companies are “taking fewer chances on music that's not geared for instant radio acceptance.” And claims the music is “as functional and one-dimensional as a fashion magazine or an action movie…They don't set out to surprise the paying customers, or to leverage popularity into leadership.”

In regards to great work though, it is clear to Pareles that regardless of the critics and the public the most memorable music has always aspired to something more than entertainment. He says, “They set out to inspire, to startle, to define an era or to defy it.” Now we are getting somewhere. Blurring the vocabulary of music and architecture I believe the question is, do we want to play in the momentary and disposable mass-market or do we want to perform something worth owning, do we want to create something that lasts?

My favorite characterization that Pareles uses describes mass-market music as...pop with little more to say than “Play me on the radio.”

Question is then, “What is our work trying to “say?” Let’s hope it is more than that…

get the original article here

Firmness, Commodity and Delight?

As a continuation of the thoughts registered by the visits to Tampa, I wanted to follow-up on questions involving how we "judge" what is good design. I was asked at that get together what I think represents great architecture and more specifically, what are my criteria, what's my score sheet. This is a frustrating question for me but I will answer it and did at the meeting. The cause for the frustration is that most people's lists that I have seen all seem to have a similar ring to them. They seem to suffer from "vision-statement-itis" populated with motherhood and apple pie glorification. It also seems that the folks who are striving to find out other's lists always want more once they have them. There's never enough detail. So one person's list will be firmness, commodity and delight and another's will be aesthetics, technical excellence and client service. Maybe you can hear the similar ring I do...or maybe not. But whining aside, I say, let's share our lists and find out if they are that different.

…this is how I know if it's Architecture

• It's relevant. Meaning connected to and in the service of specific people and place…Genius Loci.
• It's conceptual. Both the process and the product are driven by ideas.
• It's creative. It gives birth to something innovative and artful. It is a gift of ourselves to the future inhabitants.
• It’s humane…making a contribution to the quality of the human environment in a way that recognizes and supports the human condition. (This is where sustainability resides.)

And overall, my personal goal is to be capable of doing new things, not simply of repeating what other generations have done; to be creative, inventive and a discoverer. Don’t mistake this statement; I also have a great appreciation for the work of the past. And feel that what we place on this earth should connect in some way to the people who came before us and to those who will follow.

Sure there are other candidates for the list. I am particularly interested in the dichotomies of Clarity and Ambiguity, Symbol and Material, and Universal beauty and Subjectivity. For me the weight on each of these shifts from one foot to the other over time. These can easily be seen as contradictory themes and this is precisely the task: to mold components of each attitude into a whole that 's more than the sum of its parts.

architecture has become a commodity

Richard Farson claims that “Architecture has commoditized itself.”

...gone and done turned itself into a commodity. It is our fault he says. His presentation late last year, passed on to me by Barbara Hendricks and called “Embracing the Paradoxes of Sustainability” blames Architects for taking on a “vendor” mentality. And as a psychologist he encourages our profession to simply think differently.

We are not alone he suggests pointing to commoditization in journalism. And tells how the three major TV networks presented a total of 6 news segments on the Downing Street Memo on intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. At the same time they produced a total of 465 segments on the Michael Jackson trial. Farson says, “That is commoditization.” Doing what sells, not necessarily what’s right. Architects today, are enthusiastically and prolifically creating Michael Jackson-like architecture. This needs to stop.

Why?

Take the need for sustainability; not a new issue, but green buildings are still a rarity. According to Farson, there are only 60 buildings on the globe that meet the Green Building Council’s gold standards. Is that real progress towards sustainability?  No. Farson states, “The fact that occasionally a green building happens has actually made matters worse because it reinforces our belief that we are on the right track, when we are not.”

We’ve placed our bets on serving business, the private sector, developers, corporations. Money and success comes from selling these folks what they want. But since architects only design 2% of the buildings in US it’s a bit of a stretch to say that big business, the private sector, has been all that supportive. And he adds that business leadership and social responsibility are necessarily incompatible anyway and suggests that we give up the expectation that individual business leaders will see the light and become environmentally or socially responsible. Or even that they should. Sustainability, he says, is a public concern.

Most damning, he argues, is that our success as architects in areas of sustainability and leadership has become very limited precisely because we are selling a commodity and subsequently then, we are now dominated by our clientele. Farson stresses it is extremely dangerous for our society to let that happen. In its orientation toward the private sector, architecture has become a commodity.

…his straight forward advice, “…it boils down to a rather simple choice you must make—you can develop the leadership that will enable you to build a better world, achieve real progress toward sustainability and meet the other goals you have cherished since you were students, OR you can continue the protectionism and commoditization and demeaning practices that now characterize the profession. I don’t see how you can have both leadership and the status quo.”

get the article here...Download farson_on_sustainability.pdf

Chicago II

Second day touring. More interesting signs.

In case you need help finding your way...

And face as sign...

Chicago

What a great chance to tour some buildings with our University of Utah School of Business clients in Chicago. Weather has been great. Company, tours, and food even better. We are visiting these "case studies" to understand the use of them...and to research what the design served well and what it has not served well.

But on a much smaller note. I love to see how humans interact with buildings. Close up. From placing helpful tips to each other in the form of signs...

To observing with laughter the "trick" of continuing the marker tray around and along the wall thereby "fooling" the users into thinking the white board continued as well...Who would have predicted?

To discovering messages left on the drawers to file cabinets in basement storage rooms...no, I didn't open it. What's in there?

More touring tomorrow.

Green design discussions

Got back not long ago from two visits to the Tampa office. We had some good discussions about design quality and then also about sustainability. The discussion board of that office has recently bent towards the sustainability questions. So I thought I’d give it some thought. First, I applaud the idea that folks are pushing us on both sides of the discussion. It is wonderful to have that level of dialogue about important issues.

Lance Hosey with William McDonough + Partners framed the discussion beautifully. He said, “Architects…complain that the most familiar goals of ‘green buildings…’ do not exactly ignite the soul or excite the spirit.” And later, “…the work is not always easy on the eyes. The ugly truth about green buildings is that much of it is ugly.” He quotes Nikolaus Pevsner who said that “The term Archiecture applies only to buildings designed with a view to aesthetic appeal.” And goes on to argue that aesthetic delight is an environmental imperative and finishes by paraphrasing David Orr, “’If it’s not beautiful, it’s not sustainable.” A lot to chew on there.

For me, there may be a bigger question. Are we putting our effort, and eventually our money and resources towards the right changes? Some ask if making small advances in how we design buildings, given the effort required, is misguided. That possibly we should be working on the bigger picture. Perhaps we should be working the political scene to force change. Perhaps we should put our efforts towards change in developing alternative fuels if that's the main accomplishment we need to make happen. Perhaps that would be much more effective than worrying about small gains in energy efficiency of buildings. Seriously…should we be that worried about plastic spoons, LEED exams, and bike racks in front of our buildings? This is a question I’ve asked before on this blog and I think I know the simple answer after pondering the discussions we had in Tampa. Yes, we should be worried about those things simply because, well, it’s what we do.

Are we doing enough? Are we focused on the right battles? Thanks to the folks in the Tampa office for asking all the right questions. Our professional “activism” to do the right thing begins with the right questions.