Having worked on a good variety of projects from educational to corporate interior at four different architecture firm. I find that there tend not to be very much communication between the architect and the end users. We assemble elaborate presentations for clients but the people that gets to see them are usually limited to the few decision makers or a small building committee at the most. Instead there seem to be a hush hush attitude through out the design and construction process.
I like to talk to the occupants during my final walk through/ punch list process and my general impressions seem to be that the regular occupants generally have no ideas what the design intentions are or even who the architect is. Often time they turn to articles or segment from news media which often time present inaccurate or bias information. I really feel like this is a major problem since the lack of information often times leads to frustration or confusion on the part of the building occupants. Also, it seem like it is a terrible move from the marketing perspective.
I have been told that this whole secretive attitude comes from not wanting too many contributing opinions complicating the decision process. And also from the need to reduce liability.
I spoke to a few friends and they also seem to encounter similar issues with their projects. I would very much like to get a sense of where every one falls and whether or not people see this as a problem for our profession.
This is a common problem but I have to say one of the more gratifying things I've seen my firm do... since we do a truckload of ed work, we get as much input as possible whenever possible. the last project i was on we had two-day marathon meetings with ALL the teachers in the part of the county that would be using the prototype school we were designing. We divided them into manageable #'s (groups of 5-15 based on grades taught) that we could actually converse with about the project and our intentions instead of preaching to and then getting the tidal wave of "i don't like it" back... we showed 3d renderings, plans, sections - everything. We took volumes of notes but now each teacher knows what their room is going to be and has had valid input. it has really been a success.
i guess it depends on the program, client, and your patience with the end users. it simply can't be done on every project... or even very many projects for that matter.
Cowgill, it sounds like your firm has a successful program for gathering feed back during the design phase. Was there any strategies regarding resolving conflict of interests between the individual teachers? In the college building I worked on, a huge political battle broke out between the various department heads for space and location to the point where factional boundary overrode actual program requirements.
Also, considering that the largest percentage of a school is actually consist of students. Were there any attempts to communicate with the student bodies? I imagine a presentation on the process involved for the design of their school would be both interesting and educational to the students.
Some firms perform a 'Post-Occupancy Evaluation' in order to learn from inhabitants of the building. I have seen this happen at several firms but one example that comes to mind is John Zeisel's 'Inquiry by Design' book which has several case studies and POE's.
Regarding the conflicts of interest among teachers ~ we included the “real clients” (i.e. facilities mgrs, senior admin, principles…those we ultimately answered to and received checks from) in all the meetings as well so they would hear each issue that came up, as it came up, and could weigh in accordingly. We put great effort forth to keep the “real client” our ally throughout the entirety of the teacher discussions so they could chime in should issue arise… and several did, but everything was resolved MUCH more amicably than if we architects were wrestling with these platoons of teachers ourselves. The key was keeping the senior administrative staff in our back pockets the whole time, thus preserving the underlying order of our design intent and the power of the concept.
Since this was an elementary school (Pre-K – 5th) consulting with the students would have been a damn circus… although true it would have been both interesting and informative for them and fun for me, it seems it would do little more than distract from the real issues involved in the process. For some reason, I imagine the school designed with such input to more closely resemble dizneyland than anything… but who knows. With an older congregation of students, and an intelligent and aware smaller group (not the entire student body), I’m sure some good could come out of it.
I guess one problem with architecture is that planners do this every time they pick up a pencil.
Call it a charrette or public stakeholder interaction or end use evaluation.
The only major setback with it is planners do two things: the have to pick the best thing that works and they are "suppose to" (albeit most planners gave into giving into people) represent the demands of people.
What usually ends up happening is if you're technical and blunt, people become evasive. You pretty much then have to strategize a way to misrepresent or represent technical information into pretty pictures along with snippets of data. I think Kansas did this statewide not to long ago about choosing density and urban preference and Kansans were actually really accepting of medium to high density development despite claiming to have small town mentalities. The survery also concluded that not very many people were much of fans of the "usual business."
I think you could do the same thing with architecture but I'm not entirely sure how you'd go about doing it. I suppose you could give multiple room options with various floor area sizes and a combination of varying storage spaces split between different models. You could also communicate on how end users want to get to and from the building, what's parking like, what kind of facilities there are and whether the building offers basic amenities like drinking fountains or benches.
what i had heard is that the arch, landscape & planning profs all had differing ideas of proximity & transparancy to their students, from most to least, as i've listed them. i think planners ended up in the basement sequestered from the students...
el jeffe, no I did not work on the unm architecture building, can you clarify why you suggested this project in particular?
As service oriented professionals, I feel that it is essential for the public to understand exactly what are the services we provide. If we can not convey this information clearly then how can we justify the value of our services?
I remember in school the professors like to emphasis the importance in educating the client in regards to the nature of "good architecture". And it is true that most firm expend a lot of efforts to present their ideas to the decision makers, but again I don't feel like those ideas ever filter down to the general occupants or public at large. And as a result, what ever creative solutions or ideas we authored never see any recognition or enter the public consciousness.
And a by product of this is the perception (general public and some architects) that architect's services are the reserve of the wealthy and powerful.
I am not pushing for greater involvements by the public during the design development phase, although I think it can be a valuable tool if properly moderated. Rather I think architects should spend more effort explain to the public, the design intentions and the reason behind them, post project completion.
rockanhill, I am in NYC and I been to several public planning hearing and I see the elements you had mentioned. But I think there are still many aspects that are missing. Beside the usual political issue often intertwine with such processes. Other then those who have their interests directly impacted and known enough to get involved. 99% of the public that would be effected typically have no idea what is planned, why it is so and who's behind it.
Instead, the responsibility to pass on this information is usually left to the client. Given the opportunities to toot our own horn and get our name out there, why are so few firms interested?
Honestly (here is your order of a metric shit ton of pretension being dumped at your feet), the general public is at large comprised of idiots.
I have always thought and assumed that development, planning and architecture is in itself pretentious and something of importance only to the clever, wealthy and powerful. I can't not tell you the countless number of high-paid professionals (like lawyers) who really don't make their money from their law practices. Behind the scenes, most of these people are raking it in being slumlords, office space peddlers and other dubious actors on the stage of real estate.
Oddly enough, these professions are so weirdly obscured that most people have no idea what goes on to any extent. I've talked to people who have no idea where street lights or fire hydrants come from but they are sure mad when they have to pay the taxes on them.
This is kind of the touchy subject right now about urbanism vs. suburbanism is that a lot of people don't know how they live or how to live. However, even if you do educate everyone to make more rational decisions... what would they do? How would development be different if they had Google or GIS in 1925?
My core belief as an architect is that the built environment has a major impact on the social, cultural and economic of our world. It might sounds idealistic and pretentious but I think it comes out of a realization that the decision we make have very real ramification and impact on the society at large.
I think to bestow a sense of exclusivity on what we do is counterproductive. It limit our market potential to a small group of people and will only result in low fee and a constant excessive supply of architects.
indeed, our decisions have a direct impact on human behavior, but I feel architects must be careful when trying to find the middle-ground between our idealist ivory tower and engaging the population at large.
there's a reason things of 'quality' exist in the world... and it's not because the end product has had input from everyone.
from a marketing standpoint, there is no argument that we must be able to address the population at large about what we do and how (& why) we do it. To do so successfully will result bountifully for our profession... so i guess, if every architect, with every project, had to address even a portion of the end user (population at large), we could start the discussion and bring the clarity and public support for our profession which we desperately need.
It doesn't have to be a problem for the profession IF and this is a HUGE IF....they middle man isn't some burnt out couldn't cut it in the profession HACK of project manager....
That being said, most of the time we do have to deal with those bozos who create a huge amount of inefficiency for the firm hired to do the work, Nay say the design and in general *uck up the project by taking it upon themselves to half ass present your scheme without you even present to the people who actually have the decision making ability, decide that it's a bad idea for reasons that aren't even accurate, and then come back to you and try to push for the most banal boring project ever so that they feel more comfortable with the project and process because it's just like every other boring crap project they've been in charge of.
haha - do i work with you tagalong? like i said earlier, what was "one of the more gratifying things I've seen my firm do", they've done AS much of what you're talking about as the good stuff... a total lack of not just architectural language, but language in general to adequately describe the project and let it weather the storm... it comes back hacked to bits at best and the rest of us have to put them back together.
i'm not sure, can you see me staring blankly at microsoft word writing specs.....wait you can't see me, i can't see anybody from within illustrious walls of my cubicle.....now no one will know that i'm not working on those TPS reports......screw it, it's beer o'clock in my book, mr. middle man can write his own sheet rock specs....
Architect Communication with end user?
Having worked on a good variety of projects from educational to corporate interior at four different architecture firm. I find that there tend not to be very much communication between the architect and the end users. We assemble elaborate presentations for clients but the people that gets to see them are usually limited to the few decision makers or a small building committee at the most. Instead there seem to be a hush hush attitude through out the design and construction process.
I like to talk to the occupants during my final walk through/ punch list process and my general impressions seem to be that the regular occupants generally have no ideas what the design intentions are or even who the architect is. Often time they turn to articles or segment from news media which often time present inaccurate or bias information. I really feel like this is a major problem since the lack of information often times leads to frustration or confusion on the part of the building occupants. Also, it seem like it is a terrible move from the marketing perspective.
I have been told that this whole secretive attitude comes from not wanting too many contributing opinions complicating the decision process. And also from the need to reduce liability.
I spoke to a few friends and they also seem to encounter similar issues with their projects. I would very much like to get a sense of where every one falls and whether or not people see this as a problem for our profession.
This is a common problem but I have to say one of the more gratifying things I've seen my firm do... since we do a truckload of ed work, we get as much input as possible whenever possible. the last project i was on we had two-day marathon meetings with ALL the teachers in the part of the county that would be using the prototype school we were designing. We divided them into manageable #'s (groups of 5-15 based on grades taught) that we could actually converse with about the project and our intentions instead of preaching to and then getting the tidal wave of "i don't like it" back... we showed 3d renderings, plans, sections - everything. We took volumes of notes but now each teacher knows what their room is going to be and has had valid input. it has really been a success.
i guess it depends on the program, client, and your patience with the end users. it simply can't be done on every project... or even very many projects for that matter.
Cowgill, it sounds like your firm has a successful program for gathering feed back during the design phase. Was there any strategies regarding resolving conflict of interests between the individual teachers? In the college building I worked on, a huge political battle broke out between the various department heads for space and location to the point where factional boundary overrode actual program requirements.
Also, considering that the largest percentage of a school is actually consist of students. Were there any attempts to communicate with the student bodies? I imagine a presentation on the process involved for the design of their school would be both interesting and educational to the students.
frostbite - did you work on predock's unm arch building?
Some firms perform a 'Post-Occupancy Evaluation' in order to learn from inhabitants of the building. I have seen this happen at several firms but one example that comes to mind is John Zeisel's 'Inquiry by Design' book which has several case studies and POE's.
Regarding the conflicts of interest among teachers ~ we included the “real clients” (i.e. facilities mgrs, senior admin, principles…those we ultimately answered to and received checks from) in all the meetings as well so they would hear each issue that came up, as it came up, and could weigh in accordingly. We put great effort forth to keep the “real client” our ally throughout the entirety of the teacher discussions so they could chime in should issue arise… and several did, but everything was resolved MUCH more amicably than if we architects were wrestling with these platoons of teachers ourselves. The key was keeping the senior administrative staff in our back pockets the whole time, thus preserving the underlying order of our design intent and the power of the concept.
Since this was an elementary school (Pre-K – 5th) consulting with the students would have been a damn circus… although true it would have been both interesting and informative for them and fun for me, it seems it would do little more than distract from the real issues involved in the process. For some reason, I imagine the school designed with such input to more closely resemble dizneyland than anything… but who knows. With an older congregation of students, and an intelligent and aware smaller group (not the entire student body), I’m sure some good could come out of it.
too much input could easily destroy a project
I guess one problem with architecture is that planners do this every time they pick up a pencil.
Call it a charrette or public stakeholder interaction or end use evaluation.
The only major setback with it is planners do two things: the have to pick the best thing that works and they are "suppose to" (albeit most planners gave into giving into people) represent the demands of people.
What usually ends up happening is if you're technical and blunt, people become evasive. You pretty much then have to strategize a way to misrepresent or represent technical information into pretty pictures along with snippets of data. I think Kansas did this statewide not to long ago about choosing density and urban preference and Kansans were actually really accepting of medium to high density development despite claiming to have small town mentalities. The survery also concluded that not very many people were much of fans of the "usual business."
I think you could do the same thing with architecture but I'm not entirely sure how you'd go about doing it. I suppose you could give multiple room options with various floor area sizes and a combination of varying storage spaces split between different models. You could also communicate on how end users want to get to and from the building, what's parking like, what kind of facilities there are and whether the building offers basic amenities like drinking fountains or benches.
jeffe all users were considered at unm. that's why they kept the new building in proximity to the frontier.
reverse view for you vado....
what i had heard is that the arch, landscape & planning profs all had differing ideas of proximity & transparancy to their students, from most to least, as i've listed them. i think planners ended up in the basement sequestered from the students...
el jeffe, no I did not work on the unm architecture building, can you clarify why you suggested this project in particular?
As service oriented professionals, I feel that it is essential for the public to understand exactly what are the services we provide. If we can not convey this information clearly then how can we justify the value of our services?
I remember in school the professors like to emphasis the importance in educating the client in regards to the nature of "good architecture". And it is true that most firm expend a lot of efforts to present their ideas to the decision makers, but again I don't feel like those ideas ever filter down to the general occupants or public at large. And as a result, what ever creative solutions or ideas we authored never see any recognition or enter the public consciousness.
And a by product of this is the perception (general public and some architects) that architect's services are the reserve of the wealthy and powerful.
I am not pushing for greater involvements by the public during the design development phase, although I think it can be a valuable tool if properly moderated. Rather I think architects should spend more effort explain to the public, the design intentions and the reason behind them, post project completion.
rockanhill, I am in NYC and I been to several public planning hearing and I see the elements you had mentioned. But I think there are still many aspects that are missing. Beside the usual political issue often intertwine with such processes. Other then those who have their interests directly impacted and known enough to get involved. 99% of the public that would be effected typically have no idea what is planned, why it is so and who's behind it.
Instead, the responsibility to pass on this information is usually left to the client. Given the opportunities to toot our own horn and get our name out there, why are so few firms interested?
Honestly (here is your order of a metric shit ton of pretension being dumped at your feet), the general public is at large comprised of idiots.
I have always thought and assumed that development, planning and architecture is in itself pretentious and something of importance only to the clever, wealthy and powerful. I can't not tell you the countless number of high-paid professionals (like lawyers) who really don't make their money from their law practices. Behind the scenes, most of these people are raking it in being slumlords, office space peddlers and other dubious actors on the stage of real estate.
Oddly enough, these professions are so weirdly obscured that most people have no idea what goes on to any extent. I've talked to people who have no idea where street lights or fire hydrants come from but they are sure mad when they have to pay the taxes on them.
This is kind of the touchy subject right now about urbanism vs. suburbanism is that a lot of people don't know how they live or how to live. However, even if you do educate everyone to make more rational decisions... what would they do? How would development be different if they had Google or GIS in 1925?
jeffe i'm jonesing for a huevos.
My core belief as an architect is that the built environment has a major impact on the social, cultural and economic of our world. It might sounds idealistic and pretentious but I think it comes out of a realization that the decision we make have very real ramification and impact on the society at large.
I think to bestow a sense of exclusivity on what we do is counterproductive. It limit our market potential to a small group of people and will only result in low fee and a constant excessive supply of architects.
indeed, our decisions have a direct impact on human behavior, but I feel architects must be careful when trying to find the middle-ground between our idealist ivory tower and engaging the population at large.
there's a reason things of 'quality' exist in the world... and it's not because the end product has had input from everyone.
from a marketing standpoint, there is no argument that we must be able to address the population at large about what we do and how (& why) we do it. To do so successfully will result bountifully for our profession... so i guess, if every architect, with every project, had to address even a portion of the end user (population at large), we could start the discussion and bring the clarity and public support for our profession which we desperately need.
It doesn't have to be a problem for the profession IF and this is a HUGE IF....they middle man isn't some burnt out couldn't cut it in the profession HACK of project manager....
That being said, most of the time we do have to deal with those bozos who create a huge amount of inefficiency for the firm hired to do the work, Nay say the design and in general *uck up the project by taking it upon themselves to half ass present your scheme without you even present to the people who actually have the decision making ability, decide that it's a bad idea for reasons that aren't even accurate, and then come back to you and try to push for the most banal boring project ever so that they feel more comfortable with the project and process because it's just like every other boring crap project they've been in charge of.
Yes, i am bitter from personal experience.....
haha - do i work with you tagalong? like i said earlier, what was "one of the more gratifying things I've seen my firm do", they've done AS much of what you're talking about as the good stuff... a total lack of not just architectural language, but language in general to adequately describe the project and let it weather the storm... it comes back hacked to bits at best and the rest of us have to put them back together.
i'm not sure, can you see me staring blankly at microsoft word writing specs.....wait you can't see me, i can't see anybody from within illustrious walls of my cubicle.....now no one will know that i'm not working on those TPS reports......screw it, it's beer o'clock in my book, mr. middle man can write his own sheet rock specs....
nope... but it is beer-thirty.
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.