In a message dated 4/27/00 8:21:17 AM Central Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< I found that the only way to get an architectural firm to start thinking
about the site and its context was to reject the first proposal outright, and
maybe the second. >>

Larry,

I'm curious about your process of discovery to come to this operational
rule-of-thumb. I imagine pre-rule dealing w/ an architect and getting results
that did not fit the requirement of paying attention to a unique site. Then a
minor incident pertaining to another issue and that had nothing much to
logically do with the eventual discovery of the rule. Seeing results of an
action that were not intended and/or particularly anticipated, but fit the
desired outcome. Then trying the technique out with deliberate action to see
if the intended results would repeat. Then setting in a pattern of
anticipating the need to go through a cycle of rejections of first, second,
and third proposals. The whole time, I assume, not being able to reveal to
the submitting architect the technique being used to get them to focus on
specific needs unique to the project. To what extent were you able to align
you team in working together to use this process? Were you able to say what
you were doing and why, or did you have to simply move forward, do it, and
now you can talk about it?

][<en