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
Opportunities like: polling a vast number of people using online tools or modeling the likelihood that a retail space will actually get foot traffic. No one wants an empty row of shops. It makes for a sad neighborhood. You could use and develop tools that help you understand if this will happen. But you don’t.
Generally a market consultant will do this. Fault the compartmentalization of design, but I think the author is casting blame at a generalist architect who in most cases no longer exists. On the other hand, I do see the benefits of uttering the expression, "Point well taken."
iamus, get out of my head, you.
The second to last paragraph of this is a great description of how the design process usually goes.
That's a great paragraph, Donna. I completely agree with it, but I think the poster's point is that the architects we seem to hold up take the Frank Gehry approach,
"I don’t know why people hire architects and then tell them what to do."
This is the stronger of the two messages in school for example and this is what needs re-balancing.
and i always thought the ideal restaurant/cafe design was to provide an uncomfortable chair to hasten table turnover. what you have in the case of any coffee shop is free wifi and table space to spread out on and loiter for hours at a time. this is actually the way that offices should be designed. think of it, rather than sitting in a cubicle or, even worse, the open office space that you have to share with your dork boss and those clowns next to you who talk about how great The Voice was last night, you could find a nice table, plug in your laptop or ipad or whatever you kids are using nowadays put on your spotify and get to work in PEACE! and if the office was smart they would have a cafe charging five bucks or a coffeecino and have an assortment of not so fresh snacks to choose from. This would help to increase productivity and profits which could be used to pay the employee healtchare for all your employees who aren't still on their parent's obamaplan.
What architect's get but Starbucks doesn't: There are better places to get coffee than Starbucks.
I agree with that comment, Thayer. I think teaching students to design as if they will be the next starchitect is ridiculous.
But Gehry is one of my examples of architects who people *should* pay to tell them what to do. I mean, if you hire FOG and expect to have him build *your* idea then you shouldn't hire him in the first place. It would be like going to Dr. Deepak Chopra and telling him you want to go on a Ritalin and Prozac cocktail with electroshock thrown in.
The world can handle a few ego-centric architects using the practice as a way to push their own vision, because their work gets mixed in with all the other work in a context that changes slowly enough that we can all handle it. If we truly ALL practiced that way, then we would *all* need a Ritalin-Prozac cocktail every time we left the house.
Most "people" don't understand the process of developing architecture. When you question them as to their needs, wants, uses, etc., you get responses frequently in the vein of "I like Brick. It should be brick."
That's a representative example. And since everyone (the public, the users) lives their lives in buildings, when questioned about what they like or need all they have in their personal arsenal of architectural knowledge to offer the architect are their experiences of the "underwhelming" buildings they are familiar with.
No. No architecture should not be crowd sourced. One problem is that most buildings in our society are governed by the "Value Engineering" mentality of our culture. Everyone...-ish wants to go to Wal-Mart and get a "Deal".
EVERY architect practicing will give you examples of how the spirit of their work (the part that emotionally feeds the user) was pinched out of various projects by some flat-fingertipped financial expert whose opinion about putting pennies in a jar outweighed the expertise of someone who has spent years studying the places humans have built to shelter themselves across the entirety of recorded history.
Yes, architectural education starts and studies the earliest of civilizations. What about the Minoan cave? "Yeah goddamnit. I said Minoan. Go look it up. You went to accounting school. I'm sure you can read. No. No, not Etruscan. That's different. And you want 'Brick' you say?"
The problem isn't that architects don't listen. Yes that does happen. But, the real problem is that the vast depths of our society are ignorant about anything artistic. ANd don't know how to speak regarding their own humanity. The voice of the people, generally, when speaking about architectural matters, babbles jibberish and babytalk.
Then, of course, they want the architect to work for free.
I wanna start doing heroin!
The voice of the people, generally, when speaking about architectural matters, babbles jibberish and babytalk.
In other words, this round table boosts my self-esteem.
Donna, I agree with what you said about FG. If you hire him, you're going to get a Gehry. Like certain actors who give you themselves doing a role vs. giving you the character first. And one isn't necessarily better than the others, just a matter of taste.
"But, the real problem is that the vast depths of our society are ignorant about anything artistic. ANd don't know how to speak regarding their own humanity"
That's why a therapist approach might be the best. Probing to find a way for clients to explain themselves clearly rather than expecting them to speak on art and humanity the way we might. Sometimes you tell them what's best for them, and sometimes you work with what you're given. I guess how we each mediate this process defines us as individuals, without having to make everyone else into our own image.
Architects, take comfort in the fact that everyone is trying to move back into the places that were designed by architects: downtowns, New York, etc and away from the strip-malls, WalMarts and corporate hells that developers and branding people (like the author of that article) pushed town our throats from 1950-2008.
"you want to go on a Ritalin and Prozac cocktail with electroshock thrown in."
Now THATS a party!
"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."
This is a very interesting point, and not unrelated to the original article, where the blogger describes us as what amounts to buildings professionals. Would we reference ourselves as that? The industry/profession/economics/marketing is mired in a mess of semantics - think of the way 'design' and 'designer' is used in conversations within and outside of 'the profession'.
The truth is its all so big and complicated that its easily lost where ones responsibilities begin and end - other than always more until you are a terrible sample of a human being.
Is it really marketing? Most people have no idea what we do because most people cannot, have not and will never be able to afford us doing what we do. Personally, I've only worked in the single-family custom home market - post occupancy research has never occurred, even though the end users are also the clients and invested in the process from the start.
Dear humans,
You are stupid. I know this because I am one of you. But I have this job at which I am required to listen to your every want and whim and produce a building for you.
I correct myself. I listen to you yell at me for not understanding what you meant when you said "more openness."
In legal terms, architecture is a service profession. I give you what you order within the means and regulations of governing bodies, budget, and common sense. Does the house I designed for you make you feel uncomfortable, or cold, or scared? Then maybe you shouldn't have INSISTED on the floor to ceiling windows in your bedroom.
I used to think it would be fun to be an architect, to work at a place where, just like in studio, iterative design was the norm, critique is enlightening, and the end product is something that would lift humanity to a higher level.
But the truth is, the people who pay for my services can barely form a coherent sentence let alone adequately convey their needs in a new space. They rely on misused jargon and vague colloquialisms. They might sit in front of their TV for hours watching HGTV, but do they actually understand what is going beyond picking paint colors?
The world is changing. We are infinitely more connected than our previous generations, yet communication, especially informative dialog, has regressed to a pre-Phoenician state.
This really hit home for me when I read a recent article on why architects are less savvy than the Starbucks Corporation. You might believe that the author is a jaded, bitter, ex-architect that needs a hug more than any exposure on the internet, but you know what she is terrible at? Communication. And critical thought. And probably architecture.
The article reads:
"You rely on rules of thumb and pattern books, but you rarely do in-depth ethnographic research... Do your attempts really make their way into your design process?"
...
I used to think it was impossible for you to respond to an audience in the way that tech startups do. These startups can build a product, release it over the Internet and adjust it based on the feedback they get. It’s an iterative process. Architecture, I thought, was too permanent for that."
My dear humans. This is why I hate dealing with you. The very first sentence in that quote contradicts itself and the following paragraph highlights the authors own ignorance. Rules of thumb and pattern books are based on years, if not centuries, of iteration and research. Even if you can't understand how history works, you should be able to understand that the difference between architecture and tech startups isn't apples to apples, or even apples to oranges, its apples to Finnegans Wake. The article may as well have been written as, "you know what Starbucks does that architects don't do? Make their products tasty. C'mon architects, make more delicious buildings."
Now, I'm not saying all humans are dumb or poor communicators. Well versed liberal arts grads usually have a knack for conversation. And then there's communications majors and speech writers. Though these days they seem to be spending more time selling us stuff or spouting propaganda and I don't think they really do talking anymore. Do they? And even then, I would have to assume that they are dumb because that is the point of this article and I am too self-righteous to practice what I preach and do the research to find out.
You have not, it seems, because like previously stated I have done no research to write this, embraced the opportunities the Internet has given us. Opportunities like: writing inflammatory, stream of conscious, Op-Eds used solely to bolster banner ad revenue, or writing tongue-in-cheek, satirical responses to said Op-Eds out of pure spite. No one wants intelligent debate. It makes the unintelligent sad.
As for the rest of humanity, let's face it, most articles, posts, and messages are underwhelming. And even if they use whole words and have a subject, verb AND a predicate, it doesn't mean that the content is relevant or interesting. If you don't believe me see: Twitter.
No wonder society has become a segmented bickering mess. People don't communicate with each other anymore.
The problem is that humans have slowly truncated and dismantled formal language. I dare you flip through any magazine today. Find any actual information? I didn’t think so. Find plenty of fluff, filler, opinion, regurgitated rhetoric, pandering, and advertisements? You betcha.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe everyone suddenly grew an affinity for thinking before they speak. But what really drives it home is that the majority of you never re-read your emails before you send them! (That one I can't get over).
So if I’m wrong, prove it by writing me a well thought out response that is spell checked and grammatically correct. For now I remain humbly jaded.
Brilliant, claergeid. Slow clap. Well done.
Indeed.
"I used to think it would be fun to be an architect, to work at a place where, just like in studio, iterative design was the norm, critique is enlightening, and the end product is something that would lift humanity to a higher level."
I used to think architecture would be fun also, but then I had to get through studio where design was seen as an unrealistic conceptual journey that had nothing to do with the world I or anyone I cared about understood. I was taught that how one manipulated words was more important than how people perceived space. Then I realized that studio was part of a cloistered world that had no relevance to how most people lived. From history class I learned that the buildings most admired and studied where conceived from an entirely different point of view than the one espoused by most studio classes. Not that everything in studio was for naught. There where the few professors that understood average humans would be inhabiting our creations and taught towards that end. And for those who where more enamored of sounding profound than pleasing people, one learned how to recognize bullshit artists from small contradictions to large hypocrisies.
"Dear humans, You are stupid." On the other hand, "I'm not saying all humans are dumb or poor communicators. Well versed liberal arts grads usually have a knack for conversation."
Thayer-D,
I sense you have a low tolerance for satire. My response to this article was penned more as a comedic mirror than an academic counter-argument.
I do, however, empathize with your experience in studio. Architects are taught their own language in school and it can be a barrier when working with 'regular people.'
I got my undergraduate degree in Fine Art and was no stranger to bullshit when I started grad school for architecture. I had to write artist statements and talk about work that, honestly, wasn't that great, but I had to make it sound like the next Mathew Barney installation. I got pretty good at it, but I still hate doing it.
I worked in ceramics mostly, a medium that produces things of beauty and functionality and should be appreciated in by being used, not sitting on a pedestal. That holds true for architecture as well, I believe.
You might really enjoy a little philosophy book by Harry G. Frankfurt called "On Bullhit."
I appreciate good satire as much as the next person, but what throws your "comedic" effort off is statements like...
"... you know what she is terrible at? Communication. And critical thought. And probably architecture."
When you sprinkle satire with direct slams, it tends to come across more as passive aggression, which is surprising for someone who professes a certain aptitude with "artistic statements". The cynicism that seems to infiltrate our profession might just be endemic of our shared humanity. Afterall, who has come close to the dreams of their youth?
I think it's about expectations and how far from reality they are peddled in most schools. The reality of doing CD's upon leaving architecture school might not be so discouraging if schools opperated more as a trade schools where it was understood one had to put in significant time bringing other people's vision to life before they would have the opportunity to realize their own. Maybe focusing on other people's visions might engender a greater understanding of people's needs, and who knows, it might even enrich one's personal expression once you got the chance to do that.
It's nice to read of your appreciation for beauty and functionality though. They tend to take a back seat in most architecture schools as you are clearly aware of. Maybe you would still be in architecture had there been less BS, becasue god knows, we could use more beauty and less cynicism in our world.
I confess it was a bitter, inflammatory response to a bitter inflammatory article. Alas, the high road is a hard one to stay on.
I am a firm believer in self expression and disagree with your suggestion to make architecture school more trade oriented. The current educational system is flawed, but I would much rather have it skewed towards design theory than practice simulation. IDP makes up for any deficit in practical education, it gives the starry-eyed dreamer fresh out of arch school 3-5 years to get their head wrapped around cost, subs, RFIs, CA, CDs, etc. all under the guidance of hardened practicing professionals.
I wish most days for a client that can just tell me, in clear, defined terms, exactly what they want and just spend a week or two making a set of CDs for them out of their lucid programming guidelines and unambiguous material preferences. But that client has yet to present themselves. I end up using my design education to interpret words and produce sketches and models to find a common language I can use to discuss projects with the clients I do have. I feel I am better equipped to fill the consultant and representative parts of my role as architect even if my CAD skills are behind those of someone who went to a trade school.
I did stick it out through arch school and even spent 9 months un/under-employed before landing my first Architecture job. And I soldiered through because, as you said, we could use more beauty in the world. I'm not there yet, Thayer, but I'm trying real hard to be the good architect.
"I am a firm believer in self expression and disagree with your suggestion to make architecture school more trade oriented. The current educational system is flawed, but I would much rather have it skewed towards design theory than practice simulation"
I'm also a firm believer in self expression, but I also don't think practicing with someone else's vision for many years would do any harm to the true visionary. I look at two examples to inform that opinion. One, how we actually learn to express ourselves as humans, by copying all that we see around ourselves for many years. Two, the process by which many of the great buildings in the past came about. Maybe "trade" school is too harsh a lable, but the apprenticeship that previous generations went through ensured that not only where the basics where drilled in first, but that by the time one reached maturity in 10-20 years, they where conversant with all aspects of the profession/trade, and thus whatever personal vision they had would more readily and intelligently be expressed.
"IDP makes up for any deficit in practical education" Ideally, yes, but in reality I've found that it takes many more years to fully absorbe the list of knowledge you picked out, as many interns get pigeonholed in larger firms. Get me right though, if a young talent comes up, I don't think any smart boss would hold that person's creativity back, if only to profit from their compositional and/or problem solving skills. What I worry about is the dissolusionment that too often seems to set in to many a young architect who is impatient for the world to realize their genious. You might say, who cares about a young upstart, and you'd be right. It's just that I'd rather not loose whatever enthusiasm that young person brought to the profession just becasue of the chasm between what they were sold in school and how most architecture is practiced.
"I feel I am better equipped to fill the consultant and representative parts of my role as architect even if my CAD skills are behind those of someone who went to a trade school." And you might be right, but I wasn't thinking of reforming architecture school by making it into a drafting school, rather by looking closer into how people actually use architecture and letting the problems of site, client, program, etc be the main driver of a solution rather than a preconceived conceptual or ideological framework that one ends up stuffing a program into. Much like the somewhat justified modernist criticisms of the Beaux Arts where they designed Roman Bath's and Palaces only to stuff modern programs behind the colonade. I will say this about that training though, it taught invaluble lessons about composition and integration of structure with complex programs, something almost abscent in contemporary education, yet very valuable in almost any office.
As for being a good architect, I think it's up to everyone to figure out what constitutes a "good architect". We don't have to agree on that aspect, but my goal is to keep as many people who love architecture when they start school to keep loving it, regardless of thier stylistic or philosophical proclivities, becasue they will be more inclined to produce something beautiful. For example, I wouldn't stand Frank Gehry or Zaha Hadid up for emulation, but I don't begrudge their work, and given the right context, I rather like many of their buildings. I just think to make students believe (if even indirectly) that this kind of career is in their future boarders on malpractice. One can have just as much fun designing a chicken coop as a palace, as long as they maintain the pleasure of solving a problem.
I would much rather have an ADP (Apprentice Development Program) than an IDP. Interns tend to shoulder the busy-work of the office and are usually far removed from the duties similar to what they were taught in school. Apprenticeship, in my mind at least, denotes a symbiotic relationship between master and apprentice; the apprentice is initially included in all of the day-to-day activities of the architect, learning all the while, and eventually weens him/herself and evolves into an autonomous architect.
"...looking closer into how people actually use architecture and letting the problems of site, client, program, etc be the main driver of a solution rather than a preconceived conceptual or ideological framework that one ends up stuffing a program into."
The problem I see most in my area is the stuffing of client and program into 'cut-and-paste' architecture. I think there needs to be more problem solving and holistic design and consciousness of context (no one at my firm had heard of 5 scales, is that weird?). And that is what I mean by good architect. Someone who makes responsible architecture for love of space and humanity, not for fame or a paycheck or the clout that comes with being called 'architect' (you mean like Ted Mosbey? How dreamy!)
Keeping the fresh grads interested at their first job is more a task in mitigating expectations than anything. I had no allusion to grandeur in grad school. Most professors told me what to expect when I got out and for the most part they were spot on.
[The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that this article is engineered to receive such response in order to lure architects to fill out the useless survey.]
Group think and focus groups will define the lowest common denominator and agree that a round table is friendlier that a rectangular one; that there are about 27 or so levels of chunkiness for a spaghetti sauce that make it perfect, or that my coffee should taste the way a Starbucks espresso should taste out of a cardboard cup and a plastic lid.
I for one enjoy travelling to a far away country and having their coffee the way the locals make it, even if I may not like it. It is part of the experience and the connection with other cultures. The last thing that I want is the same coffee cup, everywhere around the world; or perhaps eat Olive Garden in Italy or have a McRib in Memphis.
Our dear writer has been brainwashed by her nice paycheck (let's not forget-from a advertising firm) into believing that Western ideologies squeezed out of a focus group (I've participated in some) are applicable to the whole world and best for everyone.
I do agree to a degree that when it comes to dealing with commercial architecture, most brokers, or developers they see a monetary benefit to a formulaic approach to their projects given that they are writing the checks and setting the schedules; and the architects in these niches, for the most part, may just do as the client asks.
That's because the Architect is mostly seen as the guy you have to go to in order to deal with the building department. Otherwise, the architect is rarely listened to in the above scenario.
It is only when a single architect on somebody else's project disrupts the formula successfully, that a developer may be willing to reconsider as long as they see $$$ in it. Then, this becomes the new norm until the next brilliant idea comes along.
This article is insulting (perhaps engineered to be so), full of generalizations and it seems to reinforce the undercurrent of a movement to perhaps do away with architects in general and leave it up to property owners, construction managers, engineers, and developers to come up with solutions.
The problem with this approach is, if you wanted to prevent a disease, why would you hire those who profit from making a pill that only attacks the symptoms rather than promoting a healthy prevention (planning / programming).
Her so called "proof" is a single article about a single Starchitect is quite a stretch and her point about software developers is lame. Deploying a shitty product, and then listening to the users issues with it just so that they can come up with another shitty product to deploy is no better. In fact it is counter productive and releases the developer from accountability and yet we (the end user) still suffer the same as with a badly considered storefront, building or master plan.
And yes, it is a chicken shit position she takes in quitting Architecture and then pointing our faults. Isn't that something children do in grade school? How about be part of the solution Christie?
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.