I'm just looking to start up a discussion that took place quite often while I was in school. That discussion always started with "what is your definition of good design?" Things that were important for some people didn't qualify for others and even changed frequently during the year......so I offer this up to everyone now: how do you define good design?
i have to argue your point. acceptance of 80% doesn't necessarily mean good design. most good art provokes controversy. and a basic neo-eclectic design nowadays is accepted by most people.. but i wouldn't consider it good design.. or design at all! good design evokes emotion and change. good design is also something that will change how people live and interact with their surroundings.
and i guess i don't understand your second point..
"When you make changes it does NOT get significantly better."
that would make the conversation more of an adventure, hm?
actually, when i first saw this post it occurred to me that 'nectors spend an awful lot of time arguing about what's good. why treat it as a separate issue? passing judgment on architecture is just in the air!
Good design betters the area that it's in, and the lives of the people who use it.
This is a pretty low threshold... I frequently find myself arguing with other designers who are complaining about certain features of new buildings. Yes, they could be better. Yes, being critical is a good thing, to an extent. But if it makes the neighborhood it's in better, if it raises the bar in any way, I'll probably call it "good." In this way, even mediocre architecture can be good architecture, depending on the context.
@ shaner: this is related to another discussion: is architecture an art? You compare it to art but I don't think architecture is. For example an architect always have to deal with his client, the wishes and the budget of the client.
Art, for me, is soly made for the artist himself as self expression. As mentioned above you can not apply this to architecture. But is architecture than a craft? Also I do not this is the case. For me architecture finds itself in a grey area; with an open minded client (and a big budget) it tends move to art. Tight budget and an opiniate client with very strict wishes limits your freedom. The artist in the architect needs than to work a little bit harder.
Now I started my first post with "simple way" and for a reason. As I like rationalists comment; it does not have to be that difficult. A good design for me (as an architect) has to be that the design is well thought trough. If you can justify every aspect, feature with a reason (not with your opinion) than is it a good design.
My second argument goes back to my studies (and maybe this does not have anything to do with your post): In the final stage of your project and the deadline approaches there is not enough time to plan / research / draw everything. When I made changes during that pahse and these changes did not make my design significantly better, I considered my design as finished / good. That is of course also a way of looking towards it.
A side-discussion to this might be: why does it seem like the average building in Europe is so much more sensitive to its context, users, and environment than the average American building?
How much of good design has to do with the way our building and city codes are structured?
I think a huge part of the "cheapness" of many American buildings is because our codes don't mandate enough things like sustainability and pedestrian-friendliness. They're starting to more and more, though. A city like Portland, OR does very well in this regard.
farwest - $ > people = the 'problem' with american arch. (ie the people who occupy the building and its environs, including but not limited to the ones making the profit from its existence)
i always find that these discussions always come back to the topic of money. now i think we can all agree money is a huge issue today... just as big of an issue as environmental, social, or accessibility. i couldn't agree with the money issues more.. if we cant design within a budget, than we aren't much of a designer. but i think the money is being spent on the wrong things! just because a building is NOT a faux-Romanesque or any type of neo-eclectic design.. doesnt mean it must be costly. something innovative and original can be within budget too
example - something that i experienced at work
we were doing a small cafe counter in renovation job we were doing. we had a modest budget.. and a client who was open to new ideas. we had designed a very nice counter with alot of glass and the rest of was basic p.lam. but the project manager had included 4 ceiling units from Armstrong worth 1200 dollars each. these units looked ok but i felt they could have been replaced with custom fabricated ceiling treatments they would look just as good.. probably better.. but the idea was shot quickley to the wind and since the treatments were so costly the counter had to be redesigned as a very basic p.lam counter. now i think this is extremely bad planning and design.
this is one example but it happens all the time and at different levels. just because something might be original or different doesnt necessarily mean it will be more costly
good design should be possible for the same price.. or cheaper.
i also agree that stricter codes will help.. but we need to remember and to reiterate to the client that the code is simply a MINIMUM not the best.
i think good design should captivate the civilian beholder but not interrupt their lives. i mean it should flow with the nature of its immediate surroundings.
Our good friends at the FT recently posed that question to legendary designer Dieter Rams, who responded with this:
1. Good design is innovative.
It does not copy existing product forms, nor does it produce any kind of novelty for the sake of it. The essence of innovation must be clearly seen in all functions of a product. The possibilities, in this respect, are by no means exhausted. Technological development keeps offering new chances for innovative solutions.
2. Good design makes a product useful.
The product is purchased in order to be used. It must serve a defined purpose – in both primary and additional functions. The most important task of design is to optimise the utility of a product.
3. Good design is aesthetic.
The aesthetic quality of a product – and the fascination it inspires – is an integral part of the product’s utility. Without doubt, it is uncomfortable and tiring to have to put up with products that are confusing, that get on your nerves, that you are unable to relate to. However, it has always been a hard task to argue about aesthetic quality for two reasons. Firstly, it is difficult to talk about anything visual, since words have a different meaning for different people. Secondly, aesthetic quality deals with details, subtle shades, harmony and the equilibrium of a whole variety of visual elements. A good eye is required, schooled by years and years of experience, in order to be able to draw the right conclusion.
4. Good design helps a product to be understood.
It clarifies the structure of the product. Moreover, the product speaks, in a sense. Optimally, the product is self-explanatory and saves you the long, tedious perusal of the operating manual.
5. Good design is unobtrusive.
Products that answer this criterion are tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should always be neutral, they must not be seen, they must underline their usefulness.
6. Good design is honest.
An honestly designed product must not claim features it does not have – being more innovative, more efficient, of higher value. It must not influence or manipulate buyers and users.
7. Good design is durable.
It’s nothing trendy that might be out of date tomorrow. This is one of the major differences between well-designed products and trivial objects for a waste-producing society. Waste must no longer be tolerated.
8. Good design is consistent to the last detail.
Thoroughness and accuracy of design are synonymous with the product and its functions, as seen through the eyes of the user.
9. Good design is concerned with the environment.
Design must contribute towards a stable environment and a sensible use of raw materials. This means considering not only actual pollution, but also the visual pollution and destruction of our environment.
good design
I'm just looking to start up a discussion that took place quite often while I was in school. That discussion always started with "what is your definition of good design?" Things that were important for some people didn't qualify for others and even changed frequently during the year......so I offer this up to everyone now: how do you define good design?
Simple way:
- Acceptance of 80% of the people;
- When you make changes it does get significantly better.
Argh typo:
- When you make changes it does NOT get significantly better.
macroen.
i have to argue your point. acceptance of 80% doesn't necessarily mean good design. most good art provokes controversy. and a basic neo-eclectic design nowadays is accepted by most people.. but i wouldn't consider it good design.. or design at all! good design evokes emotion and change. good design is also something that will change how people live and interact with their surroundings.
and i guess i don't understand your second point..
"When you make changes it does NOT get significantly better."
can you rephrase or explain?
whenever you wonder if something is 'good', just check with us.
though some of us like developer schlock.
that would make the conversation more of an adventure, hm?
actually, when i first saw this post it occurred to me that 'nectors spend an awful lot of time arguing about what's good. why treat it as a separate issue? passing judgment on architecture is just in the air!
Good design betters the area that it's in, and the lives of the people who use it.
This is a pretty low threshold... I frequently find myself arguing with other designers who are complaining about certain features of new buildings. Yes, they could be better. Yes, being critical is a good thing, to an extent. But if it makes the neighborhood it's in better, if it raises the bar in any way, I'll probably call it "good." In this way, even mediocre architecture can be good architecture, depending on the context.
Now THAT's Functionalism. . .
as you might imagine, this is a topic that's been discussed quite often here before.
you might want to check out this thread to see one example of some of the passions similar questions have raised in the past: In 25 words or less: "Good Architecture" is ...
Before we can have discussion it is a basic rule to clarify the statement:
good design; good design for you as an architect or a good design for the client? Maybe even a good design for the public?
Do you really mean good design or are you refering to "good architecture"? Please elaborate / clarify a bit.
@ shaner: this is related to another discussion: is architecture an art? You compare it to art but I don't think architecture is. For example an architect always have to deal with his client, the wishes and the budget of the client.
Art, for me, is soly made for the artist himself as self expression. As mentioned above you can not apply this to architecture. But is architecture than a craft? Also I do not this is the case. For me architecture finds itself in a grey area; with an open minded client (and a big budget) it tends move to art. Tight budget and an opiniate client with very strict wishes limits your freedom. The artist in the architect needs than to work a little bit harder.
Now I started my first post with "simple way" and for a reason. As I like rationalists comment; it does not have to be that difficult. A good design for me (as an architect) has to be that the design is well thought trough. If you can justify every aspect, feature with a reason (not with your opinion) than is it a good design.
My second argument goes back to my studies (and maybe this does not have anything to do with your post): In the final stage of your project and the deadline approaches there is not enough time to plan / research / draw everything. When I made changes during that pahse and these changes did not make my design significantly better, I considered my design as finished / good. That is of course also a way of looking towards it.
A side-discussion to this might be: why does it seem like the average building in Europe is so much more sensitive to its context, users, and environment than the average American building?
How much of good design has to do with the way our building and city codes are structured?
I think a huge part of the "cheapness" of many American buildings is because our codes don't mandate enough things like sustainability and pedestrian-friendliness. They're starting to more and more, though. A city like Portland, OR does very well in this regard.
farwest - $ > people = the 'problem' with american arch. (ie the people who occupy the building and its environs, including but not limited to the ones making the profit from its existence)
... anything that is approved by someone who has %%uFAIA%%u after their name.
sandmansd: i agree. it seems like good codes can prevent developers and money-people from doing their worst.
I'm not for more codes, just better and more thoughtful ones.
i always find that these discussions always come back to the topic of money. now i think we can all agree money is a huge issue today... just as big of an issue as environmental, social, or accessibility. i couldn't agree with the money issues more.. if we cant design within a budget, than we aren't much of a designer. but i think the money is being spent on the wrong things! just because a building is NOT a faux-Romanesque or any type of neo-eclectic design.. doesnt mean it must be costly. something innovative and original can be within budget too
example - something that i experienced at work
we were doing a small cafe counter in renovation job we were doing. we had a modest budget.. and a client who was open to new ideas. we had designed a very nice counter with alot of glass and the rest of was basic p.lam. but the project manager had included 4 ceiling units from Armstrong worth 1200 dollars each. these units looked ok but i felt they could have been replaced with custom fabricated ceiling treatments they would look just as good.. probably better.. but the idea was shot quickley to the wind and since the treatments were so costly the counter had to be redesigned as a very basic p.lam counter. now i think this is extremely bad planning and design.
this is one example but it happens all the time and at different levels. just because something might be original or different doesnt necessarily mean it will be more costly
good design should be possible for the same price.. or cheaper.
i also agree that stricter codes will help.. but we need to remember and to reiterate to the client that the code is simply a MINIMUM not the best.
i think good design should captivate the civilian beholder but not interrupt their lives. i mean it should flow with the nature of its immediate surroundings.
Our good friends at the FT recently posed that question to legendary designer Dieter Rams, who responded with this:
1. Good design is innovative.
It does not copy existing product forms, nor does it produce any kind of novelty for the sake of it. The essence of innovation must be clearly seen in all functions of a product. The possibilities, in this respect, are by no means exhausted. Technological development keeps offering new chances for innovative solutions.
2. Good design makes a product useful.
The product is purchased in order to be used. It must serve a defined purpose – in both primary and additional functions. The most important task of design is to optimise the utility of a product.
3. Good design is aesthetic.
The aesthetic quality of a product – and the fascination it inspires – is an integral part of the product’s utility. Without doubt, it is uncomfortable and tiring to have to put up with products that are confusing, that get on your nerves, that you are unable to relate to. However, it has always been a hard task to argue about aesthetic quality for two reasons. Firstly, it is difficult to talk about anything visual, since words have a different meaning for different people. Secondly, aesthetic quality deals with details, subtle shades, harmony and the equilibrium of a whole variety of visual elements. A good eye is required, schooled by years and years of experience, in order to be able to draw the right conclusion.
4. Good design helps a product to be understood.
It clarifies the structure of the product. Moreover, the product speaks, in a sense. Optimally, the product is self-explanatory and saves you the long, tedious perusal of the operating manual.
5. Good design is unobtrusive.
Products that answer this criterion are tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should always be neutral, they must not be seen, they must underline their usefulness.
6. Good design is honest.
An honestly designed product must not claim features it does not have – being more innovative, more efficient, of higher value. It must not influence or manipulate buyers and users.
7. Good design is durable.
It’s nothing trendy that might be out of date tomorrow. This is one of the major differences between well-designed products and trivial objects for a waste-producing society. Waste must no longer be tolerated.
8. Good design is consistent to the last detail.
Thoroughness and accuracy of design are synonymous with the product and its functions, as seen through the eyes of the user.
9. Good design is concerned with the environment.
Design must contribute towards a stable environment and a sensible use of raw materials. This means considering not only actual pollution, but also the visual pollution and destruction of our environment.
10. Good design is as little design as possible.
You can read the Less but Better article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/215b816a-5c12-11dc-bc97-0000779fd2ac.html
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.