The round tables at Starbucks were the result of asking the question how do we want people to feel before considering what do we want them to do...Form follows feeling. — Medium
Christine Outram (currently the Senior Inventionist at Deutsch LA.) penned an essay regarding what architects can learn from Starbucks, when it comes to human centered design. Specifically, in terms of user research, ethnography etc.
73 Comments
Um. I get her point, but she does know that an architect (one who hangs out here, in fact) designs all the Starbucks, right?
I think she's put her finger on a central dilemma for our profoundly alienated profession. Right on the money.
Garwondler it!
Donna sink she was an architect. It's an interesting personal insight which leads me to the comparison of architecture with the programming field. Architecture practice licenship is definitely a pivotal factor. As if the field isn't painful enough, we have our young enthusiast worn out with the plight of licenship in a field where quite frankly if we have building department that processes drawings to the umpteen on a rational level this license is not necessary. It's clearly a painful barcade that the real creatives have to deal. It's suffocating. I am working on completing, but if your not careful as addictive as I am it could lead down a sad path.
If your an architecture design addict one advise for the emerging professionals is to drop everything and focus on the license invariably till you pass, other wise this journey could turnout sour. You will feel like a bird locked in a cage.
Oh, FFS.
I hadn't read the article when I first posted the comment above. Now I read the first paragraph and at the start of the second "You don't listen to people" my blood started boiling and I skimmed a few more pretentious self-righteous and totally skewed lines before coming back here. I don't need to waste my time on this article.
Architects who don't listen to their clients don't stay in business for long *unless* they are starchitects getting by on charisma and trend, revered for *not* listening. I've never worked in a firm that didn't research, investigate, compare, and have rigorous conversations with their clients all in search of finding out what the client wants and needs.
This author is yet another former architect - and there are plenty of them here - who can't simply walk away from architecture but has to belittle everyone who decides to stay to make themselves feel better about their decision. Fine, change career paths, millions of people do, but don't be pissy about it.
As I said, I admittedly only skimmed the rest of the article through rage-filled Corbusier glasses, so if I've missed something of value I'm happy to listen to someone defend this.
Spot on. This is why so many people could give a fluck about architecture. Because architects could give a fluck about people. The feeling is mutual. She correctly points out that residential architects are a bit better off as regards to empathy because they would starve if they weren't. The point about "starchitects getting by on charisma and trend, revered for *not* listening" is telling because it's other architects that give those prima donnas the "starchitect" lable. As if it where an ideal to *not* listen. The hostility this message engenders is also telling.
that is pretty much what i thought too donna. The entire article is stupid and spiteful. Pixel pollution of of the worst kind.
as for starchitects, that meme is just as bad and ridiculous as this entire article. Its just self-righteous and envious as far as I can tell. I won't comment on how they treat staff cuz i think they are all different in that regard, but they are all great at listening and at communicating. Far above average in fact. The idea that a starchitect does not listen is profoundly absurd for all the reasons donna points out for all us reglar architects. Except more so. You don't get to be a world class architect without knowing how to listen and respond. I don't know what bug is up everyone's ass about architects who push the norms, but it ain't a problem with managing the real world. Maybe its the lack of pandering to the lowest common denominator that sets everyone off...
I missed that she now works in advertising: so she's in the business of telling people they DO NEED whatever she happens to be selling, even when they very definitely don't.
Thayer, I hate the starchitect label and phenomenon, but people DO hire starchitects - not only architects, but interior designers and hairstylists and spokesmodels and whatnot - who are prima donnas *because* they are prima donnas; the client hires them because they want to be bossed around by an artiste. The vast majority of architects (and IDs, hairstylists…) are not that way.
Oh, but I should also point out that Starbucks does do a good job figuring out what people want and meeting that need. Their stores are very well-designed and appeal to a huge range of people. Starbucks isn't the bad guy here.
Honestly, if you guys "don't know what bug is up everyone's ass about architects who push the norms", you must be living in a different world than me. You should try asking people off the street (with out any condesention) what they think, regardless of their educational or financial station in life. That's kind of the whole point of this post. People don't give a shit about architects "pushing the norms" becasue even the "norms" kind of suck nowadays, unless you haven't driven around. Granted, 50 years of off the shelf Bauhaus/International Style/modernism/pick your lable have left most peoples' expectations somewhat lowered, architecture is still a background to people's life, not the central character. Maybe that's why these "norm pushing" architects try so hard for attention, both to set themselves apart from their puritanical modernist forbearers (yawn), or maybe becasue they can't believe the general public dosen't see them as the inheritors of the heroic clap trap they where fed in schools, who knows.
And why does this perspective get under your skin? It's like architects who can't figure out for the life of them why most people don't want to live in a high-tech box, or a concrete box with one "view" when surrounded by open country, or a glass box when surrounded by buildings, or a building that looks like a strong wind will blow it over, or...really? Do you not get why most people hate Schoenberg's music, or don't care for a paint splatter by Pollock, or a green dipped canvas by Rothko? Before you blow your lid, understand that there's no problem with people liking any of this stuff (some of my best friends are card carrying modernists). It's just that most people don't, and there's now a whole lot of science that explains why. The same "science" that modernist progressives supposedly embrace...the same scientists that climate change denyers...well, deny.
And while many starchitects think of architecture as primarily a form of self expression, there are many others who think of architecture as primarily a way to satisfy societies' needs, and secondly or equally as a form of self expression. There's space for all tastes, predelictions, philosophies etc, but it seems like there's a fear or animosity of architects who aren't as interested in pushing the "norms" as they are in satisfying a client's wishes, creating harmony within a context, and of serving the public's desire for beauty, as percieved through the senses and not just the intellect. Why?
You know, I've never actually witnessed someone argue for, and against a writers 1000 word screed in one post before, but Thayer-D manages to do just that, and does it in such a way so as to demonstrate how ridiculously insipid and generally non-sensical this Christine Ouram really is. Thank you Thayer, I was actually going to spend 3 minutes, on the toilet, writing a paragraph per paragraph response, but your head spinning response saved me the time it would take to squeeze one out and wipe my ass.
Its clear we have people who are in this field with different intent like any other field. I am not focused on what the girl's article is advocating or not advocating. Whats interest to me is where is this coming from, clearly she's dissatisfied with the field and maybe expressing it the way she can and maybe there's oversight because she's emotionally connected to the article. Can there be a outlet for others to survive in this field economically or psychically who are more independent thinkers, who can delay there passionate for a while or those post grad's where want to practice immediately. There is always room for improvement at least you would think an architect comprehends that.
Her reaction could be she is one of those crazy passionate one's who want to create, compete and have grand impact with her work, she might have tried while working at firms post-graduate which can be psychologically painful.
The field have too much barcades in it, I think we'll have a bigger and better future for the profession if the license exam will be eliminated for the future generation. The very reason they came up with the building code is for safety regulation, their're regulating safety whether we like it or not. A field that is more open source and less taxing.
When you work for firm in architecture if you not the type who want to sit through the cooperate model of the practice your doom, unless you teach or somehow stay in school till you some get your license which is not possible.
It will be interesting to find out what the responses are and why to eliminate or not licenship in architecture?
I strongly believe we should eliminate it and if it's in my power I will eliminate it (hehe, by the power that be,haha).
This is my reason, if your 23 and you study your ass off for the license and past all the exam at the age of 26 but your not that experienced as they so called it. Boom you have a firm created, you start getting clients you higher expediters as they commonly do in New York (another reason) and you start employing people for help.
Secondly, I have seen projects turn circles with experienced architects because of building department processes and their nuances. Now the building department process is a must, unless you have created your project illegally.
A person like this girl would write such an article is not an argument about star-architect or philosophy to not listen or listen. Your client is your program right or at least sets the program? How the person psychologically respond to it that's what distinguishes us whether star or no star. We should look at the logics of the current governance of the field more.
Unless can get the haven that current exist, but there can be more improvement to the field thats all.
There are people who are just ok working Monday to Friday 40hrs a week in someone's office for the rest of there life or at least most of there life, there are those who see opening a firm as a regular business doing that they love but there are people who is beyond passionate about making an impacted and there isn't an good outlet for those other than getting you license or partnering to someone license. One of the beauty about the pedagogy of architecture was the disparities in the designs for the same program. There are alot of trials and tribulation doing a daily practice in architecture and I think because of this alot of the old who've gown through the Experience have bias reaction which is only natural.
This is a weird article.
Personally, I am more inclined to meet and try to get to know architects who share views that are similar to my own, but I feel confident in saying that most architects really do care about people and actively seek out their opinion when designing a building.
I am sure there is more that the profession can do to acquire user/occupier/dweller data. If a field of research about space making is in place, I personally would like to know more about it. But I also have read articles about firms which already do this.
The article is also strange because tech companies and architecture are not really comparable. Most tech, cars and ads have an incredibly shorter life span than buildings.
I don't know for sure, but I feel that it would be a lot harder to get effective user data input about how a space should feel than it would about how a gadget or interface should feel. Renderings, videos and models can only do so much to convey an idea about the proposed architecture.
In regards to vacant buildings, architects do not typically fund buildings or their locations. If there is an empty row of shops, I would say it's a lot more likely a bad move from a development stand point, or just as likely a shift in demographics in the area.
Furthermore, unlike the author, I was under the impression that architecture is naturally more of a backdrop to life than a central focus like gadgets and advertisements. While I would like people to have a better understanding of the intensely collaborative nature of building making, I am not upset or surprised that people don't really get it.
Another point, "star architecture buildings" are of course more forward thinking and expressive than 99.9% of all buildings made on the earth. That's why they are news worthy. Their uniqueness is an interesting discussion point. Does that not appear obvious to everyone else?
This is an easy layup, but can I give a shout out to Sir Norman Foster? Smart, sensitive, and efficient architecture.
SHoP Architects? Also awesome.
Interboro Partners? Great.
MASS Design? Great.
Ennead Architects? Great.
DS+R? Great.
TWBT? Great.
Has the author even heard of the Aga Khan Award for Architecture? I would guess no.
I can go on, but I feel that I've upended most of the article's gripes.
Side note: Can we stop pointing to Calatrava? The guy makes decorative structure. His buildings are mostly just one power chord--"look at this structure I made! Isn't it cool?!"
Lastly, I personally like pictures of building with people in them. They make more sense from a marketing standpoint and from an architecture/humanistic standpoint. Please look at The Smithson's House of the Future for marketing. Please look at Aldo Van Eyck's Orphanage pictures with children playing for humanism.
http://www.bustler.net/index.php/article/gdyby_group_project_shows_potential_of_empty_historic_targ_weglowy_square_i/
Hi all! I really enjoyed reading all of your posts and love that this article has us talking.
It is, however, worth restating the central thesis of my piece (before skim reads skew the argument completely!).
I believe that there are traditional ethnographic techniques as well as a new set of digital tools that architects could harness to help them understand the needs and desire of the people they are designing for.
But I don't see this happening! All architects listen to their client, but I'm talking about a deeper understanding of a building's users.
For example: how many architects do you know that survey (example of a traditional technique) the needs and desires of hundreds of office workers before they begin designing an office building?
And what percentage of the industry does post occupancy evaluations?
Meanwhile, how many architects do you know that use GIS, geo-tagged tweets, flickr photos and other data (new digital tools) to understand things like the likely foot traffic in front of a proposed ground floor commercial development, or the cultural interests of the community in which the building will go up?
Quite a few people have come forward with names of firms who do this - I'm keeping a running list and will definitely be posting about it. But I'm also curious whether (and why) this is not a concern for the profession (hence the post).
"All architects listen to their client, but I'm talking about a deeper understanding of a building's users." Thank you for re-stating this and thank you for the article in the first place. It's amazing that people could read your very straight forward criticism and be so turned around. It's part and parcel of the crap education they get that belittles "the needs and desire of the people they are designing for".
"I'm also curious whether (and why) this is not a concern for the profession (hence the post)."
Becasue they are educated to not give a shit about "the needs and desire of the people they are designing for". That's why it's "not a concern for the profession"
Your welcome, b3tadine[sutures]. Time to use the loo.
More anti architect bigotry.
Author, can you provide us a couple of examples of buildings that have failed at the same level of failure you're addressing in your article?
You know... the architects I pay attention to don't really do work for clients who think starbucks coffee is good coffee.
Jeez, this is like a real architecture crit. Project titled "Manual of Disasters" , I can't stop laugh. We are fragile creatures surrounded by a world of hostile facts, hehee. What is it camels store in their humps? Food or Water? Her psychic apparatus was flashing all the wrong signals. Only a catastrophe gets our attention. We want them we need them, we depend on them. She developed a concept of what architect needs to do or not do. This alone warrants her doom. This is what comes from the wrong kind of attentiveness. People get brain fade. Archinect is pretty good for disaster footage. This is why her article is so important. We not only enjoy seeing her punished for her relax lifestyle and progressive social ideas but we know we are not missing anything. The camera is right there, nothing terrible escape.
These are the things they don't teach. Coffee with no mug, drunk straight from the palm of your hand. Splashing on the floor. The culture of coffee shops. All those great coffee shops. The whole ethos of the coffee tables. This is what its all about. The cafe ceilings. The best Western Pizza shop. The poetry of the round table, the cashier counter, the seats.
Author, an addendum to my question: Can you also provide an example of how the building could have been improved with the tools you speak of.
Well, with the premise restated, it's a lot easier to digest. Polemical statements attract polemical critiques. That's only fair, right?
Staying focused on available technologies which utilize user data and input and would have put a lot of the feral comments to rest.
I still am not so convinced that foot traffic data are as useful to the architecture firm as they are to the developers and landlords.
Also REALLY liked that "Form follows Feeling" tag line. Really solid.
@quondam -- fortunately, what you say is completely untrue :)
I have worked with the United Nations Global Pulse group on harnessing new digital tools that can complement the existing techniques used to understand how populations (both in developed and developing nations) are coping during times of stress or slow-moving crises (like economic downturns etc).
Yes, these are the same tools that many commercial companies use to understand their "audience" and "sell more stuff" but they can and should be adapted for other professions, including architecture.
Another set of tools that are non-commercial and designed for architects, planners etc include: The Spatial Analysis Toolbox, developed by Andres Sevtsuk and his team at City Form Lab (MIT/SUTD).
Is there a need for more archi-specific tools? Definitely. We are just at the beginning. But rejecting them outright is a little naive no?
Some answers to the other posters:
@afrdzak - Lol. The technique Starbucks used intrigues me, their coffee and their business does not - I prefer my cafes local and without all the marketing :)
@Christopher Perrodin - Thanks for the list! I'd love to speak with people who have worked at these firms about the techniques and tools they use to understand the needs of people. I worked as an intern (12 years ago) at Foster & Associates and didn't see this happening but I might have been in the wrong area of the firm.
@afrdzak - The Calatrava article I pointed to sums up a lot of my concerns. But really, this is about a broader argument. It's not about pointing fingers at particular buildings (though I'm sure all of us have worked, lived and played in buildings that don't respond well to our needs). I subscribe to Rory Hyde's beliefs on this: "architecture can reclaim some social and public relevance by expanding its toolkit of strategies." There's a great review on his book "Future Practice" here that delves into these concepts.
@darkman - definitely not anti architecture - it's a complex art/science that I have a lot of respect for. Just wondering (for the last 10 years or so) why many architects don't utilize the incredible resources at their fingertips to improve their practice even more.
@afrdzak - And back to the question of whether we can truly create a concrete link between using these new tools and better buildings. I'm not sure. We need to dig into this, develop a framework and set quantifiable metrics that can equal success (from the profession and the users perspective). But from where I sit, there is an incredible opportunity here. An opportunity to really engage in new ways of thinking, new ways of practice. Whether the profession of architecture is reluctant to change, or open to experimentation is the question.
LAST THING!
Given that this post generated so much interest, I've created a survey that is polling current and former architects about the tools they use to understand the people they are designing for. I'll be publishing the results when I get to 1000+ responses.
Fill it out here: http://understandingarchitecture.weebly.com/
It is not the business of architecture to make people over-consumers.
Quondam, I love this so much.
cityinnovation, you writing that what Quondam posted is untrue doesn't make it untrue.
You're completely unwilling to listen (ha!) to what anyone here is saying: No one is saying architects should "reject outright" the "tools" you're talking about; we're saying architects (and other designers of the human-environment interface) use them already. Especially in projects that are about consuming, like retail.
My second year first semester design studio was based in post-occupancy evaluation - that was in 1987, so yeah, I've been using these tools for a long, long time. And not a single one of my former clients hated the projects I did for them so much that they refused to talk to me years later when I would call them up to see how things were going. Which is not an academic Post-Occupancy Evaluation, but *is* listening and learning.
CityInnovation it's great to see how well composed you are regardless. It's commendable. You obviously have not given up on the profession nor have I. Why advertising thou that adds steam to the controversy of your article. As much as I joke around I like to see this kind provocation. Environmental psychology and behaviour settings have many studies done by architects already it's even apart of the ARE exams. There are books of research on that. Remember Starbucks happened to be located all over which add to its effects. There are some projects done that have great environmental effects for activities that are more complex and competent than Starbucks behavioral setting. It just that Starbucks happened to be a food chain that's everywhere so it's known and familiar resources to people . There are intellects out there that don't know the Taj Mahal exist or the holocaust memorial by libeskind or the behaviour settings of cafes and other typologies around the world that are not everywhere. You need to do your research if your sincere and honest about your rhetoric. Its a shabby and clearly sheltered article.
Quondam is right about one thing for sure;
"You piece is a complete series of disconnects. You never mentioned any specific tools, nor did you supply any substantiating evidence to back up your accusatory claims."
I went to four Starbucks today, in four different parts of the Twin Cities, and spoke with users in each of those environments. I photographed each place I visited, and counted the number of round tables, and square tables. Each location was contextually different than the other. One was connected to a Barnes & Noble - not inside, that is a Barnes & Noble Cafe, serving Starbucks - but would be considered a standalone, and is represented as such by my Starbucks App. The second one I visited, was in somewhat urban area of St. Paul, a typical community coffee shop layout. The third, in a Super Target, and as I found out later, when I talked with a former Starbucks employee, this location, although considered a standalone by my app, is more of a glorified kiosk. The last one I visited, is a standalone store, near the mall and major highway. This location is one of the most profitable locations in the twin cities.
So, these are my four, I will be writing an article to rebut the piece in question. I will try to be as thorough as I can in a short amount of time, I will try not to make too many assumptions, and will keep my generalizations to a minimum. But know this, I will have talked to real people, in the environment, and will challenge much of what the author has written. I think what is absurd, is how dated the author's piece seems; people in buildings? Really? I picked up no less than three magazines today, and found many of the buildings with real people using the spaces. Magazines? I know, they still exist, but man, I've got an iPad, with like six or seven architecture mags, and I found people there too. Hospitals? Underwhelming? I worked in a firm that did healthcare, and I can tell you this - I don't know where you get your information from, but it's not from real world experience - healthcare is abundantly researched, and user grouped to death, plus LEAN principles focus on processes to an amazing degree; hospitals now, look more like spas/W Hotels, than like the prison environs of yesteryear. Police Stations? Are architects in large number designing police stations? I am willing to bet there are more architects designing boutique dog houses, than police stations. There is so much to respond to, yeah, I think an article would do me good.
As for your new trade, I dare say anyone helping to contribute to the cancer and obesity epidemic in the United States has any ground to stand on, but I am sure we will all wait, with baited breath, as you tackle your industries rampant, and soulless contribution to the healthcare woes we are all managing now. Or, would you consider Taco Bell, and Snapple/Dr. Pepper a healthy part of every American's diet, because after all, if the majority of people focus grouped find the products they consume good for them, well it must be then? Correct? I mean, if Mad Men has taught me anything, its that if Madison Avenue says it's good it is, and if doctors invent a new disease, they'll market a pill for the cure.
I do have one small, minor issue with what you have written here, thus far; you can't leave the profession, attack what we do, and then come here and claim "love that this article has us talking." You, are not, an us, you are a them.
I'm so tired of the brandification of dialogue in general. It's all Starbucks this, Gehry this, Brutalism, Starchitecture, and the drones of sheep that debate about it on Twitter.
Why can't we judge the particular effects of design on reality anymore?
We speak in generalities that have no ethical basis on reality. It's just intellectual masturbation and meaningless debates.
The brand of Starbucks is a place for buying and drinking coffee. They don't build cities, subways, airports, art-deco buildings, the Eiffel Tower etc.
You know, Christopher did a lovely job, in a masterful way, he managed to really throw a wrench in the author's short article.
Does Apple focus group their products? Their stores? No.
Yet another frustrated architect-that-did-not-make-it. Pass.
I would actually take some of the things outlined in the article a little more seriously if the author wasn't a former architect in training or whatever. She has defined a void that she apparently recognized and chose not to address these issues herself through these "tools" as an architect. She refers to the resources and tools as "available", which I would think would give her the means to practice as a professional and address these claims. I'd like to know if she even tried or thought about practicing in the manner she describes. Otherwise, the author does sound bitter as others have pointed out.
"Yes, these are the same tools that many commercial companies use to understand their "audience" and "sell more stuff" but they can and should be adapted for other professions, including architecture." Fascinating that both of these are true yet the overlap disgusts the righteous! When was life ever so clean cut?
"Magazines? I know, they still exist, but man, I've got an iPad, with like six or seven architecture mags" Who cares where you get your info? I mean you just pointed out that you're both reading the 'magazines', yet becasue one choses not to stare into a small glowing screen, they somehow aren't getting the same content, assuming that content is worth a dam? Another sign of hiding behind some tech thing than actually addressing the substance.
"As for your new trade, I dare say anyone helping to contribute to the cancer and obesity epidemic in the United States has any ground to stand on," Says you, proclaimer of all that is just and righteous. Give me a break with these pseudo heroic statements.
"Or, would you consider Taco Bell, and Snapple/Dr. Pepper a healthy part of every American's diet, because after all, if the majority of people focus grouped find the products they consume good for them, well it must be then? Correct?" That's a great point. I can see how you would make that assumption if you where eight years old. Cause MAD men had nothing to do with your sense of superiority about how you comsume info.
"You, are not, an us, you are a them." Wrong, she is us, I am us, we all are us. I know it's no fun having to accept diversity of opinions but playing some tribal game of in or out of the group is as old as the stones and an intellectual cop out. Try finding common ground rather than vilifying the other opinion holders.
"I would actually take some of the things outlined in the article a little more seriously if the author wasn't a former architect in training or whatever" Amazing how so many people are looking for a way to de-legitimize the author's points. Obviously, they don't all have to agree, but the extent that some feel the need to attack you personally as a way of disvalidating your point must tell you you're on to something.
"Otherwise, the author does sound bitter as others have pointed out." Right. It's us vs. this dip shit who dares to criticise the profession once having left it, becasue if you aren't still in it, you can't say shit. Exactly the point.
it's not the in vs out thing. who cares, really?
its the sheer ignorance shouted out loud as though ignorance proved the point. not so impressive...remarkable that there is this much response.
POA is not new. It is not done so much because of fear I suppose, and also because its hard to convert generalized knowledge into specific knowledge and vice versa. Its fair enough to build some critique if anyone cared to on that gap (its not what the article is about though). Even so lots of architects use all of the tools otherwise brought up in a fairly normal way. Sure not everyone does, but why is that a point about anything?. Observational tools are not always appropriate and architects have some idea about when and where to follow the crowd and the client. Its not an end all nor be all.
for what its worth, like Donna we were also taught research methods as part of our undergrad architectural training. We practised the whole gambit in real environment...questionnaires, guided interviews, observation, etc. Geo-tagging data is new twist, but so what? The article is not a reflection of what architects do and how we work, and the assumptions, from starbucks of all places, is rather weird - for the reasons quondam has pointed out. The point seems to be to dis the profession in some way even if it doesn't make any sense. is there any wonder so many people are calling the author out?
I think it was Steve Jobs that said that you can't ask people what they want. You have to show them. Human centered design is a crock because people only give highly subjective functional answers. If you ask someone to describe the experiential poetry of the Casa Ugalde or even a street in Paris, you can't data test it.
There has been some recent hubbub by attention seeking journos regarding Calatrava's cost overruns and Vinoly light reflection, but neither were serious about discussing the craft and experience of the buildings in their context. Most of them are seeking to put down architects in favor of "brands" ... Starbucks, Brutalism, Starchitects, Gehry, etc. It's a dangerous trend.
One is not surprised that while Starbucks improves their interior design (that's what we are talking about) the larger physical world decays--New York, Detriot, etc. Perhaps branding people get what they deserve when they smell the feces on the streets and are crushed by collapsing structures. Can you put a starbucks where there is no host building to feed? If Starbucks started building their own buildings, would they look like McDonalds?
I'm guessing the former architect that wrote this article works for a branding firm that worships Starbucks. And design does play a big factor in their success--basically by offering areas to sit. But why is it that I enjoy Starbucks in New York a lot more than in the mall? To branding people design buildings or do they focus group logos?
This would be like penning an article that berates musicians for Miley Cyrus because I didn't make it as a musician. That is the best analogy I can think of.
"The point seems to be to dis the profession in some way even if it doesn't make any sense. is there any wonder so many people are calling the author out?"
I thougth architects had thicker skin than Rappers. If this is such a snore, or a non-issue, why such a strong reaction? There are many poliemics that get ignored on this site all the time. This one didn't, and for good reason.
"I think it was Steve Jobs that said that you can't ask people what they want. You have to show them. Human centered design is a crock because people only give highly subjective functional answers. If you ask someone to describe the experiential poetry of the Casa Ugalde or even a street in Paris, you can't data test it."
First of all, is it any surprise that egomaniac Steve Jobs thought he knew so much more than everyone else? And if subjective data where useless, there would be no "need" for art in general. You can't data test art, yet we can't live without it. It's the same fear of subjective, intuitive, and emotional impulses that keep so much contemporary architecture cold. Snazzy, cool, ground breaking, sure. But something people would like... maybe.
"One is not surprised that while Starbucks improves their interior design (that's what we are talking about" No, we are talking about architects lack of empathy for users and the lack of their consideration for the users perspective within the design process, and Starbucks is just the vehicle to explore this phenomena. There are many architects who leave the profession and go on to do interesting things highlighted on this very site and everyone says "bravo" as they should. Do you think none of them experienced dissapointments in our professoin? And if they did, would it not be legitimate to learn from them even though they left the profession?
"Magazines? I know, they still exist, but man, I've got an iPad, with like six or seven architecture mags" Who cares where you get your info? I mean you just pointed out that you're both reading the 'magazines', yet becasue one choses not to stare into a small glowing screen, they somehow aren't getting the same content, assuming that content is worth a dam? Another sign of hiding behind some tech thing than actually addressing the substance."
[I guess Thayer-D misses the point, again. The point, simpleton, is that someone proclaiming latest available technology to aide dumb architects, can't even bother to reference latest technology, or read the latest magazines to find people using urban environments or buildings. I know, but anything to support your notion that architects don't do their homework.]
"As for your new trade, I dare say anyone helping to contribute to the cancer and obesity epidemic in the United States has any ground to stand on," Says you, proclaimer of all that is just and righteous. Give me a break with these pseudo heroic statements.
"Or, would you consider Taco Bell, and Snapple/Dr. Pepper a healthy part of every American's diet, because after all, if the majority of people focus grouped find the products they consume good for them, well it must be then? Correct?" That's a great point. I can see how you would make that assumption if you where eight years old. Cause MAD men had nothing to do with your sense of superiority about how you comsume info.
[Again, Thayer-D, what are you arguing here? The author writes an Op-Ed, that is woefully inadequate, shoddy in its research, and generally lazy and/sloppy. The author paints the profession with an enormously broad brush, and 99.5% of the posts here, go on and on pointing out where the piece fails, yet, we - I dare say, us - as a profession are not allowed to make our comments about the industry this author is now a contributor to.? Well, fuck you, sir.
Second, as the author works for an industry responsible for marketing products, to a public, reeling with all sorts of health issues - which of course, does not happen in other countries, to the degree it does in America - do THEY not bear some responsibility for these issues? Cigarettes were aided by advertising agencies as "healthy", are they not responsible for that as well? And, given that you think "we" as design professionals should give the "people" what they want, then why can't we castigate the author, for focus grouping people - hundreds of people, are supposed to represent Americans? - about their "tastes", and then hide behind that saying, well it's what the people want? Again, you are wrong, and as the "proclaimer of all that is just and righteous" I know what's best.]
The point of taking the author to task, resides in the simple fact that the author is not IN the profession, has not been IN the profession for some time, and her limited time IN an office, did not expose the author to all of the tools available to the real professionals doing the, real work. The author sounds like the same interns, that come here and complain about not getting a title, or talking about not getting a real opportunity to effect change. You don't get to effect change, just because you managed to get a degree, you effect change by getting in deep, getting your hands dirty, and by not quitting because your stuck doing stupid toilet room details and elevations.
Thayer, you said: ...architects lack of empathy for users and the lack of their consideration for the users perspective within the design process
Yes, SOME architects are this way. A very small proportion of working architects is this way, but those are the stories that get press and attention. So all of us who are working doing small scale improvements to our communities get painted as egomaniacs.
I still blame fucking Ayn Rand, in part, and the more often people bray this trope without being challenged the more likely it is to become accepted. I'm going to keep speaking out about it, much like I speak out about anti-vaxxers who bray about all doctors being "shills for Big Pharma". It's blatantly untrue, but it's great for page views!
God, being accused of "lacking empathy" makes. my. blood. boil.
"Dear architects,
You’re outdated. I know this because I once was one of you. But now I’ve moved on. I moved on because despite your love of a great curve, and your experimentation with form, you don’t understand people."
Oh, and just because I like using people's own words, to bolster my point. The above is how the author started the piece.
I could write a short essay on the first paragraph alone. I think Nam should've used this to highlight the piece, rather than what he used, because this in and of itself gets me seething.
You call us dated, you leave the profession, because some architects are in LOVE with curves, and experimentation of forms? Really? Was that in the Foster office, designing penis shaped towers, or mammary shaped office buildings? I can't imagine leaving a profession, because of what other people do for a living, can you, Thayer-D? I can imagine moving to another firm, doing work, that was more in line with what best represented my aspirations as a professional. I can imagine someone, a Millennial likely, stomping their feet, throwing a fit, because they don't, or can't get their way and moving to another profession, but what I can't imagine, is why that same person would decide, after finding their dreams fulfilled, would then choose to take a dump in my healthy bowl of Quaker oats, and try to convince me that they're an "us".
Stepping back from the details of the article and counterargument, I'm very happy to see this dialogue happening on archinect. When much architectural criticism and commentary is indistinguishable from so many repackaged press releases and PR talking points, it's really lovely to see people talking about the ugly, real and contentious aspects of architectural and advertising practice.
And back to the subject at hand: I've seen Christine speak and a lot of what she is talking about reminds me of what we all heard from the millenial digifab and form evangelists:. Intriguing ideas with great potential, but unless someone develops them into tools that can actually be used in practice, they will just be a bunch of forgotten monographs, lectures and conference proceedings. Has anybody seen Greg Lynn lately?
Janosh, good to have you back, good point too. The piece references these tools, and yet we all know the limitations of tools and the ability to be a predictor of human behavior, unless of course you work for 538.com and know Nate Silver, then of course, have at it.
b3tadine[sutures],
Glad to see your bowl movements are back to normal. You are most definatly allowed to make your comments, it's just the anger that I find fascinating. Maybe you should go on another fact finding mission in the Twin City Starbuck empire, might help you write more.
"And, given that you think "we" as design professionals should give the "people" what they want" You really don't get it do you? Let's try again. People like junk food, yet they should eat organic food, so make a delicious meal to give them what they need and what they want. Does that make sense? Incorporate the things they like in a way that makes sense, not in a short order cook way, but in a 3-star chef way. They still need to like it.
BTW, You don't need any fancy tools to be able to listen to people, you simply need to observe and to be open to talking with people outside your profession. The latest technology isn't gonig to solve this puzzle by itself, you need emotional intellignece as well.
Donna,
Your right, it is some people and not all architects. I'd encourage you to read the local blogs in your town about the new buildings going up. Here in DC with all the smartypants around, it's impossible to dismiss the lack of enthusiasm for many a new project to ignorance or lack of education. It's this disconnect that I take from this article, not anyone in particular. I also think Ayn Rand is a psychopath, just look at her Fountainhead idiot ripping off the facade of his skyscraper for the truth. The same facade that contributes to NYC's world admired character. I can assure you it's not becasue of the parade of Modernist clones marching down 6th avenue or the public housing turds all around town. Infact, the NYT had a magazine section devoted to the upperclass trend of stamping out any character that makes different towns worth visiting. Does that writer want to derve Disney caricatures to architects? No and he explicitly states as much. But I wouldn't assume the author is accusing you in particular for lacking empathy, especially if they don't know you. Don't. boil. just. simmer. if. you. must.
I decided to take the bold move and answer the online poll truthfully and honestly...and frankly and rather vexed as to what information it will glean. I am intrigued by this critique as the programming and analysis phases of any project are the most difficult: who to listen to? what priorities to make? how to sell an expenditure with a long-term payback versus a short-term fix? and these don't even get into the nitty-gritty aspects. The problem is how can you ask a question about the shape of a table when you don't even know the size of space required yet...or what does a question about the shape of a table even mean... in the end.
So, I would ask the author to put her money where her mouth is. If this is necessary, create a consultancy, market yourself to owners, sell you wares. Does the world beat a path to your door or is it a blind alley? The market will let you know very quickly. But sadly she missed the first question any entrepreneur must ask themselves: who is your target audience? and with that mis-step and misunderstanding a series of other mis-steps follow.
So this is a good look-back for those studying to be architects and who have ever developed a contract. Programming is an add-service requested by the client or is provided by the client through their own means. This is not to mean that we shouldn't ask the question...but it is not our central role. So ask who is the target audience. Then sell it. A brilliant mind once said "truth is only what you can sell someone on" I think it's brilliant and an incredible measuring stick. If you can't convince someone else, your truth isn't a reflected in the larger sphere of truthiness and therefore becomes non-truth...so what is truth in the end? It's not fixed. There are no right answers, may the better argument win in the arena in which it fights.
Programming is an add-service requested by the client or is provided by the client through their own means.
++
Client is the term I missed in that article btw.
Sorry, and the same can be said for post-occupancy evaluations. Again, add-service requested by client or provided by the client. Not part of the central role of the architect. Nice ideas, but I've yet to see a project actually make so much money that the architect can afford to do these without compensation or approval by the client.
I just clicked on the survey link and sad to say the survey goes off the rails with the first question:
I'm answering this survey as a current/former practitioner of:
...then lists a half a dozen specific areas of practice. I've been practicing for 27 years and would need the option "all of the above, plus some". Obviously the survey is only intended for those who are relatively new to practice, who would, by default, not have much experience with post-occupancy evaluation work or face time with clients. Which would tend to validate the results she wants to find anyway.
Oh well. Can't believe everything you read on the internet, I guess.
The internet never seems like a very good place to talk seriously about architecture. Am I wrong?
Seems more like a cauldron of hate, gossip, narcissism, pornography (people and design) and self-indulgance.
I think that this issue goes much deeper than simply a debate about specific techniques for gathering data on client preferences.
I can't even count how many times in discussion with architects, in person or on this discussion board, that I've heard variations on the argument of "people are too uninformed (naive, foolish, dumb, uneducated, childish, uncultured, etc.) to know what they should like when it comes to design, so our duty as architects is not to really listen to the public, but give them what they should have, whether they want it or not."
I think this attitude has led to an estrangement between the public and the profession, one that is unfortunately getting worse and worse. I'm certainly not saying all architects are guilty of this, but I certainly think that the avant garde is, and they are the ones who are getting wide publicity.
It's quite ironic that Ms. Outram uses Starbucks coffee shops as an example of how architects could listen in order to suggest that architects don't listen. Starbucks has its own design department that designs the prototypes, fit-outs and storefront specific adaptations. Starbucks also revamps their store designs every 5 years.
Starbucks as an example of what architects should do and as an example of architects' failures to do is primarily relevant if we narrow the scope of focus to retail and service sector industries - specifically corporations that use brand identity to create feelings of exclusivity, brand loyalty, etc. This carries over into how Starbucks' shapes the interior architecture to create the feeling that you're at a local neighborhood coffee shop with leather chairs, soft music, warm colors, free Wi-Fi, round tables and a barista that knows your regular order.
I think Ms. Outram does herself a disservice through her negative perception and/or assumption by insisting architects don't do research, don’t listen to end users, and don’t utilize public realm data to inform their designs to the degree she thinks they should. Of course, the process she claims we don’t perform is called Programming and the manner in which it is done varies greatly by project type and client needs. That period of research and documentation is where those critical questions Ms. Outram assumes we never ask actually do get asked, diagrammed, parsed and then interpreted into graphic forms that eventually might get built.
One could argue that Advertising however gets to use nebulous phrases like "leveraging synergy for branding outreach" to charge a client for a slide show and some organizational bubble charts but doesn’t really result in something of value for the client or end user. Of course if the advertising campaign doesn't work they can try a different color, slogan, font type or increase the volume on the TV advertisement.
Architecture IS and has been slow because it is a capital intensive endeavor where the client has specific goals / ideas / wishes / needs that inform the design process and ultimately are resolved by the architecture. Aesthetics aside, function and form are intimately intwined if they're to fulfill the demands put upon them. Even when the projects is a small fit-out for a boutique store – the task of the architect / designer is to try and understand what the client wants to achieve while being given nebulous worlds like homey, comfy, warm yet cool, sophisticated yet rustic. It’s the dubious or enjoyable task of taking those words / values / desires and programmatic needs and designing something that has to exist in the physical world for people to interact with both as a background to their everyday life and as functional and inspirational part of their physical interactions with the built environment.
Ms. Outram implies that architecture would better serve the public realm if only it were allowed to reflect the direct opinions and wishes expressed by the laymen, focus groups and GIS-tagged flickr photos. We have that already. It’s called retail architecture and in the residential world a "builder home".
But designing by committee and letting the design reflect every single data-point that might be a factor does not equate to better architecture. It results in a muddle of indecision and extreme ordinariness. Where every factor has been taken into account but nothing has been filtered out and distilled to the core. Even Advertising doesn’t include every piece of data in branding and identity creation or even product development. All of that data is distilled down to the core requirements and functions and aesthetic needs.
Can architecture do a better job of communication with clients and end-users? Sure, but so to can clients and end-users communicate with architects about the specificity of what they are trying to achieve. The process of architecture is messy and the layers of people that inform or affect the design is then further complicated by the filter of interpretation that the builder adds as he / she translates the design intent into built reality. If anything, it isn’t that Architects don’t listen as much as we don’t do a good job of educating people as to what exactly we do and why we can bring value to the table in realizing the client’s future in built form.
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.