Bruce,
I don't think we have a substantial disagreement. The definition of
the problem, and setting the parameters of the acceptable solutions,
quickly narrow the design direction and support any previous decisions
(like the selection of the architect, or if the project is necessary).
The schematics are not arbitrary flailings among random ideas, they are
a disciplined process of continuing to refine one's understanding of
the problem and the seeking of the elegant solution.
If one starts sketching a design without understanding if the problem
is by nature engineering, construction, financial, ego or that spooky
new age wisdom stuff, one isn't really addressing the client's needs.
Not that that should be a concern.
-jc
On Jan 5, 2005, at 1:37 PM, Bruce Marcham wrote:
> John:
>
> This sounds like the sort of thing an engineer would be accused of
> saying, that there is only one solution and if you can't afford it you
> obviously don't understand it (and that is coming from an
> engineer). In reality there is no one right answer if you open
> yourself up to different viewpoints. True, not all solutions are equal
> but there might be an ideal one from the aesthetic or historic
> preservation standpoint, another from the engineering or energy
> efficiency standpoint, another from the standpoint of maximizing
> financial payback (in the case of a commercial building), another from
> the Feng Shui or traffic flow standpoint, etc. Different issues or
> viewpoints have differing levels of importance depending on a variety
> of circumstances. It is my impression that it's the client's job to
> communicate what those circumstances are (or the architect's to pull
> them out of the client) and the architect's job to explain the
> ramifications of those circumstances on the design solution to the
> client.
>
> I thought the schematic design phase is where the design options are
> floated and the one the client selects, with the advice of his
> professional consultants, is the one you (the architect, engineer, or
> contractor) run with. I recognize that not all projects have a formal
> schematic design phase but I would think that it is rare that a
> problem is given to the design professional(s) and the next time the
> client hears from them the contractor has his tools in hand, ready to
> start. Some give and take usually takes place, right? Even if it is
> (in the extreme) "I can hold some poly down with some nails and
> roofing tar for $200 but it will probably leak in a week or I can do
> it up right for $50000."
>
> Bruce
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pre-patinated plastic gumby block w/ coin slot
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John
> Callan
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 9:07 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BP] Histo Presto Content
>
>
>
> Ken,
>
>
>
> The multiple choice approach is a myth. No designer can work that
> way. Not all solutions are equal, and it makes no sense to invest time
> in alternative mediocre solutions. So, to my knowledge, schools don't
> teach a multiple choice approach, as such. However, since a studio
> full of architecture students facing the same design problem will
> produce a wide range of solutions, and most will receive a passing
> grade, it does sort of look like a multiple choice approach. No,
> Architecture students are taught to have a concept, vision, or some
> other gift that sets them apart from mere mortals (ie. clients, the
> public, engineers and contractors), so the challenge is to convince
> oneself and one's client that the vision is deserving of a sacrifical
> offering in the form of cash.
>
>
>
> The client is almost always an amateur. The service should guide the
> client through the design and construction process. Some bubbles get
> burst along the way. At least that happens to my clients. They don't
> teach that in school. Hell, no one talks about that.
>
>
>
> -jc
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2005, at 6:25 AM, Gabriel Orgrease wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm curious though, to what
>
> extent architectural schools teach that an architect's careers may be
>
> devoted to working through multiple choices with ill informed
> amateurs?
|
