Buildings Are for People
Rand's questions began this thread: "what happened to the information on energy, community connectivity, water and materials that was part of each project's required submission? . . . Where is the building performance information?"
Thanks Rand - good question. So how do we move away from pandering for award recognition with form that falsely presents function. A perfect example of this is Gates Hall at Cornell (LEED Gold). Check out OBSTACLES TO SUCCESSFUL EXECUTION – When Looks Ignore Function , a brief article on LinkedIn.
After studying the dilemma for eight years, that 'looks ignore function' yet "we know how to design" (contributed by Nick), I proffer two central contributors: Education and Silence.
'Education' covers architecture school programs as well as continuing education. One is dictated by the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB), the other influenced by our AIA. Although 'sustainable design' and 'human centric design' are our stated concerns, both NAAB and the AIA, overwhelmed with an ever increasing body of new techniques, technologies and materials, have succumbed to accepting 'intention' as 'competence'.
In 2009, sustainable design education credits became mandatory to sustain AIA membership. In 2013, that requirement was removed:
"Recognizing that sustainable design practices have become a mainstream design intention in the architectural community, the Board of Directors has voted to allow the sustainable design education requirement to sunset at the end of calendar year 2012. AIA members will no longer need to complete the sustainable design requirement to fulfill their AIA continuing education."
In 2004 and 2009, NAAB's Student Performance Criteria (SPC) progressively strengthened sustainable design requirements, yet it too reversed course in 2014. In 2004, sustainable design was included among 34 SPC knowledge and skill categories, requiring students to demonstrate an "Understanding of the principles of sustainability in making architecture and urban design decisions". In 2009, "Understanding" was upgraded to "Ability", requiring an "Ability to design projects that optimize, conserve, or reuse natural and built resources", and it related those skills to integrated practices. Merely understanding sustainable design was no longer sufficient; NAAB required competency. However in 2014, NAAB deleted sustainability from the SPC. The sole mention of sustainability referred to preparing "a review of the relevant building codes and standards, including relevant sustainability requirements" and assessing "their implications for the project". Sustainability went from "Understanding of the principles" to "Ability to optimize, conserve or reuse natural resources", to being able to 'review codes and requirements and assess their implications'. Competent ability became the ability to review.
When mainstream design "intention" negates the need for knowledge, skills and continuing education, it is time to rethink the paradigm.
The need for better education of both students and the practicing profession is paramount. Although manufacturers' brochures and PR make the use of sustainable design techniques, new materials and technologies appear intuitive, or simply add-on appendages - they are not. Many of these representations are outright misleading. Their technical engineering manuals tell the real story – the cautions, prohibitions and actual performance data. But in general, architects are not engineers. In order to avoid the pitfalls, we need a better understanding as to where such use is appropriate, and how to achieve the benefits. Without continuing and up to date education, the fall back is employing sustainable appendages as a marketing ploy – looks ignoring performance and function.
Which leads us to the second contributor to the lack of performance – our silence. Frustrated with reality, the path of least resistance is acceptance of the norm through our silence. As long as we please the client's budget, taste, program agenda and marketability, we can receive praise regardless of performance or validity.
The honest concerns expressed on this thread are exactly what is needed, hopefully on a broader basis; even more so in committee meetings, on juries and in public forums. Otherwise we will continue to ignore reality. It is up to us to challenge both our architecture school studio and seminar content, as well as the content of our AIA continuing education courses – especially content provided by manufacturers and suppliers. And as well disclosed in this thread, we must challenge the performance of our award contenders. What we build has a long life, there is a heavy price to pay for poor performance.
------------------------------
Bill Caplan Assoc. AIA
Author of "Buildings Are for People"
www.buildings-are-for-people.comManaging Member
ShortList_0 Design Group LLC
Bronx NY
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 09-07-2017 11:42
From: Paul Bierman-Lytle
Subject: Institute Honor Awards
We've just launched our AIA Detroit COTE with a tremendous turnout. As Detroit shakes off the dust from its recent past, the city's legacy architecture still stands. There is also a growing undercurrent of sustainability solution advocates from all sectors. In light of the discussion regarding overlapping COTE Top 10 with AIA Design Awards, we concur. The environmental/sustainable development architectural 'history' has suffered from its image of creating unappealing design aesthetics. There is absolutely no excuse for this. As design professionals, our skills should demonstrate that environmental stewardship meshes seamlessly with excellence in design aesthetics. Examples are all around us in nature and in architecture of the past. Al Hambra, Katsura palace, and most early designs that integrated materials, climate, culture, and craft in proximity of their location would achieve LEED Platinum, perhaps even Living Building Challenge.
We're extremely excited in our new COTE group to explore the integration of Natural Capital, high performance technologies, climate, aesthetics, culture, and craftsmanship. Time for COTE Top 10 to be the top AIA Design Awards.
Paul Bierman-Lytle I Chairman I Executive Director
PANGAEON I SEAS Corporation
London I Washington D.C. I Boston I Detroit I Honolulu I St. Louis I Los Angeles I San Francisco I Dubai I Abu Dhabi I San Jose, Costa Rica I Florence, Italy
Original Message------
Kim,
You are NOT tilting at windmills. As evidenced by the other comments here, and many discussions in different places in the profession, you are right on target! If as architects, we don't merge our concerns about sustainability and the future and our definition of a great project, we continue to undermine our own progress.
The COTE Top 10 awards are incredibly valuable in trying to push those ideas forward, but until the COTE Top 10 has major overlap with the AIA Design Awards, we need to keep at it. In the meantime, we need to all keep asking those questions of our colleagues: how can you say it's a great piece of architecture if it doesn't contribute to solving the urgent problems of our time?
Keep it up, Kim...
We're all in it together!
Betsy del Monte
------------------------------
Betsy del Monte FAIA
Principal
Transform Global
Dallas TX
------------------------------