For the better part of two years, Graves checked into hospitals and rehabilitation centers as a business traveler checks into hotels. [...]
While receiving his medical care, Graves was struck by the poor designs of hospitals, health care facilities and the chairs, tables and other devices used by patients. "If it's going to be this bad for everybody else in health care," he said, "I should do something about it."
— money.usnews.com
Previously: Architecture for Recovery: IDEO and Michael Graves Design a Home for Disabled Military Veterans
6 Comments
I'd vote for LESS fashionable, more basic. You know, so we can afford to go when we need to go there.
It's not the building design that makes it cost $70,000 for two or three nights.
Love this:
"Right now, we're in the downest cycle we can be in," he says. "The avant garde is so narcissistic." Graves plans to become more active in public efforts to change professional attitudes but says it's not an enjoyable prospect. "It's the least of what I want to do, and it's the most of what needs to be done."
I think the use of the word "fashionable" is just misleading. Graves is talking about making things more pleasant AND functional, in other words, well-designed.
Michael Graves is the guy I want to design my hospital room.
Is the "Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital" a rehab for oversexed starlets?
"More fashionable" hospitals is a poor choice of headlines ...
really fantastic and about time.
Almost all of the hospitals I designed during my early years as architect were depressing for the willful dis-allowance of anything like a vision for human comfort in healthcare deisgn. Care is fantastic in technical way but the psyche and even basic comfort are often set aside. Its really perverse because its not even about money, just apathy, or perhaps distrust of design content.
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.