6 ms·
I sent both the page and this discussion to my architect student sister and this was her reply: "You know, I would love for some people who say “bullshitting
by jgon 13y ago
I sent both the page and this discussion to my architect student sister and this was her reply:
"You know, I would love for some people who say “bullshitting architects” to design a building. It’s hard to do. Super hard. You need to think about lighting, space, circulation, code, envelope, foundation, zoning, materials and material restrictions, HVAC and electrical, construction timelines, COST, fire exits, structure just to make ANY building. And you have to think of it all at once. And each of those things has many many possible choices available and every choice you make affects every other choice. And all of those choices contribute to the “design.”
Now imagine that you are just a normal human being going to work and you’ve got some shit at home, or you are kind of tired or sick, and then make all the best architectural choices for all of those things. And do it on a timeline and sell it to a client who, more often than not, is just the person who is going to rent out the building, so the entire purpose of the structure is to make money for a client who is therefore, not going to be super into spending a lot of extra $ on design time to make it streamlined, beautiful and functional.
I would say 90% of the time it’s not the bullshit that makes a bad building, it’s circumstance that makes your design goals bullshit. But you can’t say that, because it’s your job to deal with all that crap. Which is super hard to do."
I told her I loved her comment and was going to post it, and then she sent an additional message (after she had become a bit less annoyed):
"I do, to some extent understand the criticism… or at least, I have some personal criticism. Because the thing with architecture is that it is, to some extent, all within the public realm. Everyone HAS to look at it. Most people have to occupy it. The decisions that architects and clients make dictate what takes up space in your world – visual space at the very least, and in some cases those decisions will actually force you to alter your behavior every single day. So I get it, but instead of calling out “design” as the issue, take steps to alter your world in a way that is meaningful.
Attend public forums on zoning meetings, learn how to do graffiti and make ugly walls beautiful, buy your own buildings and participate in the design process, plant more flowers, sponsor public art, etc. etc. Some architecture firms have open-forum presentations on their upcoming projects where the public is welcome and criticism and ideas are discussed, but the only people I have ever seen in attendance are other architects (and students) and while they all want our cities to be more functional and visually pleasing they probably have a different perspective than some people (which naturally comes from being in on all of those zoning and permit discussions, and having your livelihood depend on the oft-volatile construction industry.)
In conclusion, cool it, dudes. And “be the change..” or something like that."
I thought it was fascinating to read what could have basically been a developer complaining about the rigors of developing software for clients or bad managers, but instead it was an someone talking about what goes into building a structure. And it was refreshing to get a bit of outside perspective and break some of that "programmer's myopia" I find myself succumbing to from time to time.
- badman_ting 13y agoI have noticed this type of thinking in a lot of different contexts. If you play a video game and it has a female character portrayed in a sexist manner, you say "damn developers". If you have to work in a building that has no windows you say "damn architect". If you get screwed by a retail business you yell at the schmo behind the register making minimum wage. We don't like to think about systems, we like to think about what jerks other people are.
- brudgers 13y agoI think about the practice of architecture and it's systems all the time. It's a commoditized service, that doesn't scale because it's ultimately based on labor intensive piecework. A set of architectural plans for a project that won't be built has no value. A set of architectural plans for a building that will be built has exactly the value of the fee for their preparation. There's little opportunity for reuse, and what reuse occurs tends not to add value for the client. To compare it to software, imagine if the first code sent to the compiler was what was shipped as final product. Construction is unit and integration and usability test. Thus the architect has three tools for selling their services: legal requirements, expertise, and bullshitting. The legal requirements create a level playing field and most architects have adequate expertise for most projects. That leaves bullshitting as an important differentiator - even more so for those willing to treat the regulatory playing field less seriously - and the seriousness of the regulatory playing field is why architects are licensed in the US. Erio Saraann wasn't a "bullshitting architect" because he at least as good as he presented himself (same for Rudolph).
- waterlesscloud 13y agoThat's all true, but in the end the architect is responsible for much of the bad design. There's no one better positioned to "be the change" when it comes to architecture than...architects. I don't think there are many (if any) fields that affect people more thoroughly on a daily basis. Of course there's pressure to do take the path of least resistance. You know that going into the field. The responsibility, though, is to overcome it whenever possible. It's not like software is any different. There's tons of pressure to just get by. It's our responsibility as developers to go beyond that whenever possible.