surixurient must just be so dismayed by the lack of McMansions in Minnesota, he perceives those few non-conforming designs, seemingly in European/Middle Eastern/Eastern markets as a generalized perception of all architectural intent. It is fairly obvious he has never designed or worked on a public project for the built environment, and his perception may be purely limited to programming. So it may be best if everyone quits taking the troll bait.
He may need to be made aware of things such as town-hall meetings, public intervention, design review boards, etc. Then, he may need to be made aware that when someone is having their personal house designed that is not directly part of the public space, no one gives a damn what his opinion is or how much a persons personal habitat isn't "traditional".
suri, they said the tea partiers go into those public meetings and scream and fight for the microphone and have no manners. you're not a tea partier are you?
That discussion seemed to state, that when fighting to stand up for responsible planning of the community, the public can be their own enemy due to their extremist approach (an extrapolated activism of Jane Jacobs that has lost insight) or inadequacies due to lacking civility or a lack of knowledge about the subject they are rallying for/against. That the public seem to take a mob approach on important issues and then pat themselves on the back without achieving anything really meaningful (and that money wins).
It is more of an issue of all parties involved (politicians, public, developers, planners, designers, etc.) being able to respect one another and cooperate.
RyuArch, this is exactly what I've come to expect when opening our projects to the public. I often see more emphasis on the slogans than on hard, well informed suggestions.
Chanting a mantra together has the feeling one is doing their duty to change a project well in reality all it does is waste the consultant's time.
You know, at the end of the day, architects are still going to design the way they are used to regardless of this forum and this discussion. Some are going to things others don't like. I don't see the point in arguing other points of view...
It all boils down to money.. even if 99.8% of architects design in a way that is considered "good" or "worthy," there still will be those who say "f*ck it- I'm going to do whatever my client wants me to do because my client pays me to work and not have/show any opinion on the aesthetics..."
Bikeshedding, or the Law of Triviality, illustrates how stupid it is to think everyone has an opinion that must be considered! Reminds me of all building design committees and review clubs.
Example of a committee making decisions on a 3 item agenda (from Wikipedia):
The first is the signing of a £10 million contract to build a reactor, the second a proposal to build a £350 bicycle shed for the clerical staff, and the third proposes £21 a year to supply refreshments for the Joint Welfare Committee. The £10 million number is too big and too technical, and it passes in two minutes and a half.
The bicycle shed is a subject understood by the board, and the amount within their life experience, so committee member Mr. Softleigh says that an aluminium roof is too expensive and they should use asbestos. Mr. Holdfast wants galvanized iron. Mr. Daring questions the need for the shed at all. Mr. Holdfast disagrees.
Parkinson then writes: "The debate is fairly launched. A sum of £350 is well within everybody's comprehension. Everyone can visualize a bicycle shed. Discussion goes on, therefore, for forty-five minutes, with the possible result of saving some £50. Members at length sit back with a feeling of accomplishment."
Parkinson then described the third agenda item, writing: "There may be members of the committee who might fail to distinguish between asbestos and galvanized iron, but every man there knows about coffee – what it is, how it should be made, where it should be bought – and whether indeed it should be bought at all. This item on the agenda will occupy the members for an hour and a quarter, and they will end by asking the Secretary to procure further information, leaving the matter to be decided at the next meeting."
Maybe architects should take cues from Suri's people. Give the public the control they crave by putting something atrocious in the design for them to take out.
the duck technique (I got it from wikipedia): This started as a piece of corporate lore at Interplay Entertainment. It was well known that producers (a game industry position roughly equivalent to project manager) had to make a change to everything that was done. The assumption was that subconsciously they felt that if they didn't, they weren't adding value.
The artist working on the queen animations for Battle Chess was aware of this tendency, and came up with an innovative solution. He did the animations for the queen the way that he felt would be best, with one addition: he gave the queen a pet duck. He animated this duck through all of the queen's animations, had it flapping around the corners. He also took great care to make sure that it never overlapped the "actual" animation.
Eventually, it came time for the producer to review the animation set for the queen. The producer sat down and watched all of the animations. When they were done, he turned to the artist and said, "That looks great. Just one thing: get rid of the duck."
There was one town where we were establishing a 50 year plan (since they did not have any type of plan). There were some there who did not understand that without a plan for their town/beach community detailing the zoning type and preserving natural lands, that their community could really be at the whim of developers, like their neighboring towns (especially as one large landholder in the state was going to be building a bridge connecting larger populations to their area). We received some yelling to go away, some about how bad Obama was for taking their money and apparently using it for this, and a town drunk yelling conspiracy theories.
There are some members of the public who have no interest in listening to reason, and only have a mindset that anything done is going to be a change for the worse; ignoring that the actions being taken could be for preserving their community.
Why won't you (the public) LIKE what we (Architects) propose?
Sneaky-Pete, Bingo!
surixurient must just be so dismayed by the lack of McMansions in Minnesota, he perceives those few non-conforming designs, seemingly in European/Middle Eastern/Eastern markets as a generalized perception of all architectural intent. It is fairly obvious he has never designed or worked on a public project for the built environment, and his perception may be purely limited to programming. So it may be best if everyone quits taking the troll bait.
He may need to be made aware of things such as town-hall meetings, public intervention, design review boards, etc. Then, he may need to be made aware that when someone is having their personal house designed that is not directly part of the public space, no one gives a damn what his opinion is or how much a persons personal habitat isn't "traditional".
He may have gone by a Gehry building too many times and is under the assumption that is what all of us design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqn1rDykm00 (will have to watch this later, looks interesting and relevant)
suri, they said the tea partiers go into those public meetings and scream and fight for the microphone and have no manners. you're not a tea partier are you?
That discussion seemed to state, that when fighting to stand up for responsible planning of the community, the public can be their own enemy due to their extremist approach (an extrapolated activism of Jane Jacobs that has lost insight) or inadequacies due to lacking civility or a lack of knowledge about the subject they are rallying for/against. That the public seem to take a mob approach on important issues and then pat themselves on the back without achieving anything really meaningful (and that money wins).
It is more of an issue of all parties involved (politicians, public, developers, planners, designers, etc.) being able to respect one another and cooperate.
RyuArch, this is exactly what I've come to expect when opening our projects to the public. I often see more emphasis on the slogans than on hard, well informed suggestions.
Chanting a mantra together has the feeling one is doing their duty to change a project well in reality all it does is waste the consultant's time.
You know, at the end of the day, architects are still going to design the way they are used to regardless of this forum and this discussion. Some are going to things others don't like. I don't see the point in arguing other points of view...
It all boils down to money.. even if 99.8% of architects design in a way that is considered "good" or "worthy," there still will be those who say "f*ck it- I'm going to do whatever my client wants me to do because my client pays me to work and not have/show any opinion on the aesthetics..."
Bikeshedding, or the Law of Triviality, illustrates how stupid it is to think everyone has an opinion that must be considered! Reminds me of all building design committees and review clubs.
Example of a committee making decisions on a 3 item agenda (from Wikipedia):
The first is the signing of a £10 million contract to build a reactor, the second a proposal to build a £350 bicycle shed for the clerical staff, and the third proposes £21 a year to supply refreshments for the Joint Welfare Committee. The £10 million number is too big and too technical, and it passes in two minutes and a half.
The bicycle shed is a subject understood by the board, and the amount within their life experience, so committee member Mr. Softleigh says that an aluminium roof is too expensive and they should use asbestos. Mr. Holdfast wants galvanized iron. Mr. Daring questions the need for the shed at all. Mr. Holdfast disagrees.
Parkinson then writes: "The debate is fairly launched. A sum of £350 is well within everybody's comprehension. Everyone can visualize a bicycle shed. Discussion goes on, therefore, for forty-five minutes, with the possible result of saving some £50. Members at length sit back with a feeling of accomplishment."
Parkinson then described the third agenda item, writing: "There may be members of the committee who might fail to distinguish between asbestos and galvanized iron, but every man there knows about coffee – what it is, how it should be made, where it should be bought – and whether indeed it should be bought at all. This item on the agenda will occupy the members for an hour and a quarter, and they will end by asking the Secretary to procure further information, leaving the matter to be decided at the next meeting."
Maybe architects should take cues from Suri's people. Give the public the control they crave by putting something atrocious in the design for them to take out.
the duck technique (I got it from wikipedia): This started as a piece of corporate lore at Interplay Entertainment. It was well known that producers (a game industry position roughly equivalent to project manager) had to make a change to everything that was done. The assumption was that subconsciously they felt that if they didn't, they weren't adding value.
The artist working on the queen animations for Battle Chess was aware of this tendency, and came up with an innovative solution. He did the animations for the queen the way that he felt would be best, with one addition: he gave the queen a pet duck. He animated this duck through all of the queen's animations, had it flapping around the corners. He also took great care to make sure that it never overlapped the "actual" animation.
Eventually, it came time for the producer to review the animation set for the queen. The producer sat down and watched all of the animations. When they were done, he turned to the artist and said, "That looks great. Just one thing: get rid of the duck."
There was one town where we were establishing a 50 year plan (since they did not have any type of plan). There were some there who did not understand that without a plan for their town/beach community detailing the zoning type and preserving natural lands, that their community could really be at the whim of developers, like their neighboring towns (especially as one large landholder in the state was going to be building a bridge connecting larger populations to their area). We received some yelling to go away, some about how bad Obama was for taking their money and apparently using it for this, and a town drunk yelling conspiracy theories.
There are some members of the public who have no interest in listening to reason, and only have a mindset that anything done is going to be a change for the worse; ignoring that the actions being taken could be for preserving their community.
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.