Skip to main content

Operational Tension

When it comes to how we do our jobs, where do architects find inspiration? It seems to me there are three perspectives:
  1. Sui Generis - Treats architecture as a unique field, looking to other architects
  2. Creative Orientation - Lessons can be found in other creative fields
  3. Business Orientation - Seeks to apply general management principals
The limitations of the sui generis approach are self-evident (that is, I don't want to look for references at this moment). By focusing only on the practices of other architects, our ability to adapt and innovate relies on other architects to experiment and disseminate that information. How consistently do the major trade publications look at these issues? I suspect not often. I also suspect readership of more specialized publications is thin within the architectural community. This approach has the self-serving appeal of defining our work as special and by extension, we are special. Maybe architects aren't more prone to that sort of status seeking than anyone else. Maybe we are.

The creative orientation is often driven by a signature designer's personality and is difficult to apply consistently. The business orientation risks commodification of our services. The most common practice that I've observed is to try and switch from creative to business, from design to production. I've heard a fair amount of talk about design happening at all scales and at all phases of a project. I haven't seen that consistently carried out all that often. The definition of design as a form of creative problem solving helps, but I don't believe we've built operational frameworks to support it.

Farnam Street recently posted some ideas from the original Mad Man and advertising great David Ogilvy that, I believe, balance both the creative and business perspectives. I'll just repost the headline concepts and leave the details to you. Unfortunately, the original publication is out-of-print. Used copies are available online for $50 and up. Ogilvy titled it The Eternal Pursuit of Unhappiness (happiness being equated to complacency?), based on eight principals:
  1. Courage
  2. Idealism
  3. Curiosity
  4. Playfulness
  5. Candour
  6. Intuition
  7. Free-Spiritedness
  8. Persistence
These strike me as much more interesting topics for discussion at an annual review. Having sat in on some 90 day reviews recently, they're certainly more interesting than Communication and Skill Development.


Comments

  1. samSeptember 6, 2019 at 6:12 AM

    Upon further reflection, I'm pretty certain architects underestimate how creative and dynamic business can be. Following start-up culture, though not necessarily a good place for practices, I've seen a lot of design thought and creativity.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Urban Play

Looking at this proposal for Atlanta , I can't help thinking there is something inherently elitist about urban recreation spaces that don't include playgrounds or sports courts and fields. The abstract, curvilinear forms that are fashionable today are almost completely irreconcilable with activities like basketball or soccer or softball. Those activities are pushed to second-class parks that receive virtually no programming effort and minimal maintenance. Add to that the sometimes stark racial and cultural divides between participants in these various sports and I can see why it is convenient for city staff to think that a "nice" park doesn't have sports facilities, perhaps only subconsciously. Designs with swooping paths and undulating terrain help conceal that prejudice. It isn't an entirely fair criticism of this particular project as they appear to be trying to add something public, green and walkable to what might otherwise be entirely vehicle oriented.  ...
1 comment
Read more

Bloomberg Surveillance

I was watching a little Bloomberg this morning. An interesting moment occurred when Tom Keene was discussing the talks  going on in Paris. I wish I had the exact phrasing, but he said something like, “We really need to wait until we see the impacts [of climate change] before we can try to prevent them.” His tone sort of trailed off at the end as if the contradiction of that statement occurred to him mid-sentence. His point was, I believe, that it would be irresponsible to spend big money trying to prevent something that might not happen. They then moved on to the massive smog alert  going on in Beijing and how the health impacts of burning coal have brought the Chinese government to the table sooner than anyone had imagined possible. Unfortunately, he and his fellow commentators failed to put these two ideas together:   If we wait until we see the impacts, it will be too late to avoid them. When inaction risks many lives, the only prudent thing to do is act now.* ...
1 comment
Read more

The Value of Pop Economics?

A friend recently posted a meme about rising income inequality to Facebook. One of the comments was a link to a piece from Economics Explained with the provocative title " How The Dutch Economy Shows We Can't Reduce Wealth Inequality With Taxes " I'm starting to see a pattern in these sorts of economics articles: 1. Make a pointed and contrarian claim about the power of economics to address a major issue in contemporary society (taxes won't fix inequality). 2. Compare related economics concepts that have much narrower definitions than the ones that drew in the reader (GINI vs income & wealth inequality vs a few specific aspects of Dutch taxes and culture). 3. Add some artfully selected facts to keep people interested (Heineken family info). 4. Also artfully avoid saying explicitly that the narrow comparison proves or disproves anything specific about the broader societal problem. 5. Make a generally agreeable statement about the world: Inequality doesn't ...
Post a Comment
Read more