I've recently had a (what could have been an interesting) project, at the direction of the client, make an unfortunate turn for the boring and banal.
All of the supporting graphic documentation was there, from diagrams explaining the idea, to construction phasing feasibility, to renderings...
However, at the end of the presentation (and i should clarify that this was to a university client interfacing with their project managers) they seemed throughly uninterested in anything that might lead to slightly more cost (but still within overall budget), than a bare bones solution.
My boss, who supported the design approach, through out a tidbit of info, quoting, "studies have been taken that show that the quality of a work environment (natural lighting in our case) has shown in increase productivity levels, and therefore profitability, by X%, i can't remember the number....
Anyways, the rest of the personal story is unimportant but it got me thinking about wanting to acquire solid counter arguments that that in general defend design and start to talk about it's value...
I was hoping that we could share some of those bits of information, be it statistics or whatever else that might help when and client needs "a little nudging"...
At the most basic level it believe that Good Design adds Value. All of the why's are what would be nice to assemble.
My experience is that the players in large institutions are under enormous pressure to complete these projects for a certain price. This pressure often outweighs the chance to do something even moderately interesting. Bureaucrats aren't big risk takers.
What did you mean by "slightly more cost"? Can you incorporate any of your design goals at a lower cost?
witness the meteoric rise in ESD over the last 10 years. In my experience, large corporate clients with money to spend are falling over themselves to have 5 star buildings designed and built.
It is hard to justify good design. Until recently, it was hard to justify green design. There are lessons to be learned there.
Colleges and universities can have horrible internal politics. Designing something "unusual" (and often this is just because its better than average) is often attacked as an example of wasteful spending. College facility people sometimes stick to banality as a C.Y.A. measure.
Which U.S. university is it that has a 1000year buildings policy?
i.e. their recently built ice-rink had to be designed to last for 1000 years.
For (links to) many of the arguments in favour of the benefits of design in these situations, University of Minnesota's InformeDesign collates the best of.
You might find a book like this useful. The workings and thinkings of DEGW cannot be ignored.
Well, hoe do you convince a client in indulging in design practices that look at scale? Like from individual room to building to site to street to neighborhood to city?
An inappropriately placed building can kill itself even if the building is a well-designed. I still LOL a lot at LEED houses built in the middle-of-nowhere with 3-car garages or LEED drive-to skyscrapers. Most green technology can be equally LOLworthy because most of them are electronically controlled and there is no such thing as green deep-earth mining. You break the ground past the water table and your unleashing all sorts of hell.
I think people when designing buildings (especially big ones) should think about the janitors. They're the people who have to go over every surface at least once a week-- they probably see more of the building than anyone else. And I think it is wholly unfair to the army of low wage workers who are essentially the human foundation of these projects... most of them can usually never afford to live within walking distance of where they work.
So, the cost of transportation (not to mention the cost of parking and the cost of real estate tax on parking), congestion and commute time are already pretty big obstructions in hoping your building will provided any positive benefits to employee production. Such each employer is basically giving their employees $8,000 a year to come to work which can probably be spent on other more productive things than a money pit of a vehicle.
Mar 6, 09 6:27 pm ·
·
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.
In defense of design...
I've recently had a (what could have been an interesting) project, at the direction of the client, make an unfortunate turn for the boring and banal.
All of the supporting graphic documentation was there, from diagrams explaining the idea, to construction phasing feasibility, to renderings...
However, at the end of the presentation (and i should clarify that this was to a university client interfacing with their project managers) they seemed throughly uninterested in anything that might lead to slightly more cost (but still within overall budget), than a bare bones solution.
My boss, who supported the design approach, through out a tidbit of info, quoting, "studies have been taken that show that the quality of a work environment (natural lighting in our case) has shown in increase productivity levels, and therefore profitability, by X%, i can't remember the number....
Anyways, the rest of the personal story is unimportant but it got me thinking about wanting to acquire solid counter arguments that that in general defend design and start to talk about it's value...
I was hoping that we could share some of those bits of information, be it statistics or whatever else that might help when and client needs "a little nudging"...
At the most basic level it believe that Good Design adds Value. All of the why's are what would be nice to assemble.
people are more productive in spaces that they are comfortable staying in.
My experience is that the players in large institutions are under enormous pressure to complete these projects for a certain price. This pressure often outweighs the chance to do something even moderately interesting. Bureaucrats aren't big risk takers.
What did you mean by "slightly more cost"? Can you incorporate any of your design goals at a lower cost?
witness the meteoric rise in ESD over the last 10 years. In my experience, large corporate clients with money to spend are falling over themselves to have 5 star buildings designed and built.
It is hard to justify good design. Until recently, it was hard to justify green design. There are lessons to be learned there.
Colleges and universities can have horrible internal politics. Designing something "unusual" (and often this is just because its better than average) is often attacked as an example of wasteful spending. College facility people sometimes stick to banality as a C.Y.A. measure.
well-designed buildings depreciate less and refurbishment at longer intervals
Which U.S. university is it that has a 1000year buildings policy?
i.e. their recently built ice-rink had to be designed to last for 1000 years.
For (links to) many of the arguments in favour of the benefits of design in these situations, University of Minnesota's InformeDesign collates the best of.
You might find a book like this useful. The workings and thinkings of DEGW cannot be ignored.
DEGW's Frank Duffy writes the Work and the City book which is siter to the one in my above post
Well, hoe do you convince a client in indulging in design practices that look at scale? Like from individual room to building to site to street to neighborhood to city?
An inappropriately placed building can kill itself even if the building is a well-designed. I still LOL a lot at LEED houses built in the middle-of-nowhere with 3-car garages or LEED drive-to skyscrapers. Most green technology can be equally LOLworthy because most of them are electronically controlled and there is no such thing as green deep-earth mining. You break the ground past the water table and your unleashing all sorts of hell.
I think people when designing buildings (especially big ones) should think about the janitors. They're the people who have to go over every surface at least once a week-- they probably see more of the building than anyone else. And I think it is wholly unfair to the army of low wage workers who are essentially the human foundation of these projects... most of them can usually never afford to live within walking distance of where they work.
So, the cost of transportation (not to mention the cost of parking and the cost of real estate tax on parking), congestion and commute time are already pretty big obstructions in hoping your building will provided any positive benefits to employee production. Such each employer is basically giving their employees $8,000 a year to come to work which can probably be spent on other more productive things than a money pit of a vehicle.
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.