Response to Tara, boy howdy, I can't wait to see a long response from you. Here are a few follow-ons to your comments, at least I hope they follow. I have always thought that the most important aspect of a hotel is whether the shower can be brought to the right temperature and be made to stay there. The problem is, I am unaware of a reliable guide to whether that will be true. So, instead, I stay at the latest, coolest, most avant garde(sp?) hotel that I can afford. Not sure what that tells us. Maybe its related to this. Developers and realtors have been heard to say that there is no building that can't be improved with landscaping. As an architect, that's a little depressing, maybe? But, I have to say, that this architect, who does a lot of zany, creative work, agrees with that claim completely. We can either continue to live in our small rarefied world of ARCHITECTURE, or we can engage the greater public and come to be important to them.
Let's turn your comment about the boundary between school and real life upside down. I think the schools are wildly important, were great fun for me, and I do not think they should become a place for creating employees. Nonetheless, I think the problem, at least the problem that we can do anything about, is with the schools and not the real world. We need to educate architects so that they are strong enough, confident enough, even creative enough to engage with the heathens and bring them around. You can't do that unless you truly do, ALSO, respect your client's values. As I have said before here, I see no conflict between my devotion to Mother Art and the needs and wants of my clients. Do everything for a reason that your client understands and do it artfully and everything works.
But that isn't quite the whole story. I have had what some might characterize as a very successful career. I have built, oh, I don't know, maybe 1500 projects, and at least 1000 of them are significantly, and mostly successfully, I think, artful. But the way I have been able to make that happen is by giving it away, either to my employees or my clients or, ugh, the contractor. I know that is not a model that many are going to adopt. I have to give it away because so many other architects either can't be bothered with "regular folks" or, when they do engage those folks, they provide ARCHITECTURE instead solving their client's problem(s). As a profession, we need to find a way to do what we love to do in a way that makes sense to a much larger percentage of the populace. Based on my experience, I believe that is possible.
Let me suggest that what we really need is a way of recognizing excellent architecture that even an accountant can understand. I do not think that goal is in any way in conflict with our creative freedom. No, instead, it can inspire to even greater specific architecture.
That's probably enough, if not too much, of a response. Tara, come back at me, if you will.
Mike Mense FAIA
Original Message:
Sent: 06-09-2011 02:06
From: Tara Imani
Subject: Camels on the Head of a Pin
In response to Mike Mense's question: "...but next time, tell us how you recognize excellent design, ok?", I will give a short response for now. It's been years since I was in architecture school, so I've missed the critiques. We have lost that- it seems- in our profession; the art of design is down-played as soon as we step out into the "real" world. Maybe there are firms who've retained this studio atmosphere- yet, for the most part, the client's wants and budget are what seem to be the deciding factor on any given project's design.
So, how do I recognize excellent design? To that, I say, I recognize excellent design when I see and/or experience it. And, I strive for design excellence in my own projects. Buildings look far different in reality than on paper. An orthogonally laid out double-loaded corridor of offices may be expedient, but the plan that brings a dynamic force will end up engaging the end-user more.
As an end-user, I am most interested in things like good water pressure, cleanliness, spaciousness, plans that make sense as opposed to "maze-like" layouts, etc. And there's the wow factor. I experienced the wow factor when I attended the newly minted FAIA fellows convocation at the 2006 AIA Convention in Los Angeles, held at Frank Gehry's Disney Hall. It was a beautifully designed space. I thought the lobby was too tight to enjoy and it felt a bit chopped up, not a place conducive to mingling...but the auditorium itself was beautifully done- the finish woodwork was amazing and I loved how he centered the organist in the middle of the back wall of the stage- almost "dangling" in mid-facade.
Excellent design in terms of city planning is very lacking these, imho- although there are good pockets of it throughout places I've visited throughout the U.S. I recently visited Cleveland and was reminded why it's been called the demeaning term "mistake on the lake." What a missed opportunity to use the waterfront in a better way. Some improvement exists near the Science center and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, other than that, it is an eyesore.
Yet, it's easy to be an armchair critic. It's much different when you're the one solving the problems head-on.
Back to talking about architecture projects. I recently had a prospective client contact me about designing a sports field and adjacent support facilities. After hearing the client's vision, I was inspired to want to help raise funds and envisioned getting it LEED certified and using a type of "grass-crete" product as the parking lot. Yet, nothing has come about due to insufficient budget, lack of foresight in purchasing a lot in a city that's requirements were more stringent than the client's budget could withstand. The client wanted a simple plot of grass, some portable potties, and a gravel parking lot; the City, on the other hand, expected a paved lot with fully usable restroom facilities. It's like the Jack Sprat riddle: "...and never the twain shall meet."
Again, proving the budget- in this case, lack of funding- dictates design.
Or, take a residential client who's stuck with a bummer of a house- a real rat-maze layout, horrible exterior massing translating into zero curb appeal, but the home-owner doesn't want to move. Oh well, so much for any grand ideas or solutions by the architect. If the client doesn't want to move, then no deal.
Again, proving that the basis of excellent design begins with a good, solid, serious benefactor- like the Medici family in Rome.
We need a Renaissance now!
Back to the topic of excellent design. I think we can put the criteria for such into two categories: must haves and subjective qualities. Must haves: firmness and commodity. Subjective: delight. (To be clear, we MUST have beauty- however, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and in the hands of the one holding the wallet). Must haves: LEED adherence or sustainable/green design, adherence to a reasonable budget, structural soundness, appropriate geometries of massing, space, (basically everything addressed in Francis Ching's book Form Space and Order). Subjectives: this is the part I grapple with the most when dealing with commercial projects based on "standard" specs. I tend to prefer natural stones, granite, marble, etc. and abhor linoleum, plastic laminate, and cheap-looking carpet (here, only talking finish materials).
Overall, I recognize excellent design when it is well-executed. I recently watched a documentary on the rebuilding of the Parthenon and the new exhibition halls built adjacent to it. It was simply sublime- I can see why it has earned a 2011 award. So, to sum it up, truly excellent design is marked by the feeling of sublime beauty, structural integrity, and meaningful use of materials.
Well, that's my quick answer for now! Please let me know if you'd like to ask me any other questions or to clarify anything I've said.
Thanks for asking my opinion! :)
Kind regards,
Tara
-------------------------------------------
Tara Imani AIA
Principal
Tara Imani Designs, LLC
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------