Design related quotes from "The Social Animal"

"A wide body of research has found that there are certain tastes that most people share. As Denis Dutton argues in The Art Instinct, people everywhere gravitate to a similar sort of painting - landscapes with open space, water, roads, animals, and a few people. A cottage industry has grown up to investigate this preference. Evolutionary psychologists argue that people everywhere prefer paintings of landscapes that correspond to African savanna, where humanity emerged. People generally don't like looking at dense vegetation, which is forbidding, or spare desert, which has no food. They like lush open grasses, with thickets of trees and bushes, a water source, diversity of vegetation including flowering and fruiting plants and an unimpeded view of the horizon in at least one direction. Some critics have noted that Kenyan's prefer pictures of the Hudson River School to pictures of their own native landscape. That's because, critics argue, the landscape near the Hudson River in New York state more closely resembles the African Savanna back in the Pleistocene era than does the present, and much drier, Kenya."

---

"More broadly, people like fractals, patterns that recur at greater levels of magnification. Nature is full of fractals: mountain ranges with peaks that greatly echo one another, the leaves and branches on trees, a copse of aspens, rivers with tributaries. People like the fractals that are gently flowing but not too complicated. Scientists even have a way to measure fractal density. Michael Gazzaniga illustrates the process in this example: Imagine that you were asked to draw a tree on a piece of paper. If you left the paper blank, that would have a D (fractal density) of 1. If you drew a tree with so many branches the paper was entirely black, that would have a D of 3. Humans generally prefer patterns with a fractal density of 1.3 - some complexity, but not too much."

the attention span for beauty

I'm not sure how I feel about what I'm writing, because it makes me really feel like part of the machine, but here it goes. (Also, it will upset some artists out there - good, we need to have a dialogue). I would imagine I spend about 80 percent of my time outside during the work week with my eyes either glued on a screen or looking down at cracks in, or ice on, the sidewalk. It leaves me little time to observe or absorb much beauty in the built environment. Sure I perceive things and quickly put them in the "go, no-go" directory of my visual opinion, but that's about all I do.

Now a lot of this is due in large part to the 9-5 commute rush and hurried lunch breaks since we live in America and not the 'laze as you please European Union.' With that said, it's a sad excuse for not paying more attention to the beauty of details or wide sweeping forms around me. I'm saying this from the perspective of a designer, even more sad. It's easy to say change and spend more time appreciating, but it's not an easy balance. Perhaps this a bigger conversation outside of design and more on the culture of work in the American context. ANYWAY.

While I'm sitting on the subway or the bus, or power walking my self through the city streets, I always get to thinking about the role of beauty in the built environment. What does it mean for the year 2013, the younger generations and the future? In a time where most people part of a younger generation can find things of more intrigue on the Internet than the composition of space and textural patterning of planting - as an example - it makes me wonder if design moving toward performance based measurement is just evolution, after all.  

The focus on measuring success in the landscape seems to be more intriguing to many people than beauty. There's certainly already reasons for this other than the pace of life in the contemporary world: economic bottom line, environmental consciousness, community development - to name a few. If we were to go to a town or city today and say, we want to do this because it will be beautiful, the likelihood of something actually being built isn't very likely. But, if we say we can provide a design that will have measurable success for items ranging from environment to community, then the likelihood of getting it built goes up. 


Measurement trumps beauty? Perhaps.


So, what's the point? As designers we should be considering the role of art in design now more than ever. Particularly in the public sector where decision making based on proof and evidence is beginning to be weighted much higher than artistic value, how do we respond as design firms? Will sticking to a mantra of artist as designer work or do we need to move toward designer as artist, ecologist, engineer, scientist, policy maker, planner, public health expert?

My belief is that we need to become a profession of collaborators. Art for the sake of art isn't enough to design spaces that will last, nor be appreciated for the long term. Especially when the attention span for beauty is less and less, we need to create spaces of depth - not just a single dimension of being beautiful or not beautiful. There needs to be more to design than layout and composition - it needs to do something, perform in a way that makes a positive impact. 

Sure, even if only a few people appreciate the beauty, it needs to be beautiful as well. But, if we leave it at that, we're missing the point.

don't settle for best. work harder.

I read an article recently about quitting your job. It was interesting, yes, and provocative, too. If you're bored with life, your job and witnessing your goals, hopes, dreams, aspirations, world changing surges starting to fade or already faded, read these 10 reasons right now.

After you finish reading it once or twice, there's one thing that may have popped out. If not, let me give you my observation in a quick paragraph.

The notion of dreaming and doing big things is intellectually beautiful. But realities are not cheap. They take work, a lot of fucking hard, grueling and, most times, seemingly unrewarding work for long stretches at a time. 

So, I think point 11 on the 10 point list should be: WORK. WORK HARDER. DON'T SETTLE FOR YOUR BEST, EVER. 

Best is nice, but best means that you're not going to be better. That's pretty weak. Especially when we're talking about doing something that really is about following dreams and making them into realities. 

So, if we're looking to do something that matters, that gives us purpose, we can't be afraid to work hard. Further, we can't be afraid to fail. Because we will fail, a lot. But, if it's your dream it's up to you to follow it until it becomes a reality. And when it does, know that it's going to take more hard work to sustain it. 

Now let's all go do something big, pursue whatever it is that we believe in and not sit back waiting for something to be handed to us.   

collaboration in competition

I entered the Detroit by Design Riverfront Competition with an architect, urban designer and graphic designer as an experiment in collaboration. While we didn't win, it was a unique experience to learn how other design disciplines think - both about space and concept. You can take a look at our submission, and all the others, at the competition home page.

Enjoy.

agriculture and education

I recently developed and spoke on a panel at the ASLA 2012 conference in Phoenix titled, "Beyond Food Production: Agriculture and Landscape Architecture in the 21st century." Grow City published a post reflecting on this session as well as another session pertaining to local food and the educational value of agriculture in design. 

I am happy that there is a continued interest in the topic of local food, and in particular, that the notion of diversity of programming the agricultural landscape is discussed. While the Grow City post focused on the educational aspect of designing for food, it highlighted (whether intended or not) the fact that the possibilities of local food production are nearly endless. 

We can think of food on numerous scales, consider it as an educational tool, an outlet, a recreational program, or as a planning tool as well as a piece of urban infrastructure. 

Of course, a shout out to Rutgers University Professor Holly Nelson on her part of the panel as the main focus of the Grow City post!

designer fun

Just a fun invention for designers. This will definitely be on my holiday list!

wealth

I was recently shown an article about overt consumerism from Domain Design that poses an interesting question:

What is the impact of extreme wealth on design and what is the role of design professionals when retained to participate in obscenely expensive projects?

The article discusses the role of branding in design as well as in development and construction. I, for one, believe there is a place for branding and marketing in the world of design - just not necessarily in a way that creates predictable architecture, devoid of place and cultural identity. I believe that individual designed landscapes and buildings have a great potential to be marketed and branded as a way to define their identity and place in an ever-fluid culture - i.e. The Highline, Brooklyn Bridge Park. However, the idea of branding a certain style of architecture or a certain composition of landscape to be essentially mass produced as if it's for sale on the global market, defeats the purpose.

Architecture is not commodity. Landscape is not commodity. Most people will say, 'ok, well you just contradicted your above statement about branding. How can you brand and market something and remain luxury over commodity?' Simple. It goes back to the idea of designing something very much "of the place," specially designed to blend with culture, tradition, while at the same time being very much of the time. Some of the most used or recognizable buildings and landscapes are the ones that are unique to their region, city or community but at the same time very well developed in their image, their program, their fun-factor, for lack of a better term.

So this brings up the next question. How can you brand and market your firm and remain unpredictable, unique and visionary? Look at Apple, for one (of course, prior to the last few quarters since they've become miserably predictable). If we brand our firm identity as energetic, fun, innovative and curious then we can continue to advance built work, intellectual concepts and the design fields at large. This is synonymous with the notion of the individual building or landscape that is well branded, but still, 'of the place.' However, once we develop a style, or a kit of parts and that becomes our brand and our identity it's harder and harder to transcend that. This is synonymous with an architectural style or landscape composition as mass commodity (ok, modernism was cool for a minute).

But, think about it: how do we want to be perceived as a firm? As a profession? There's a role for branding and marketing as well as a fine line for its effectiveness or its detriment.

so, I've been thinking...

If you're an 'entry level designer' the worst thing you can do is limit yourself to the entry level duties. Sure, some will argue that during the 9-5 you have little choice - your responsibility is to produce, be efficient, be effective and, ultimately, be profitable.

However, let's look outside the 9-5. There are a million things going on in the world of design - from competitions to publications, from speaking engagements to roundtable discussions. Nothing bugs me more than people proclaiming that because you're at a certain level in a professional career you are limited to what you can do and what you can be part of. Everyone has ideas - it doesn't matter if those ideas come from someone who's 50 or a 20something. Bring something good to the table and it doesn't matter who it's coming from.

Anyway, back to why I decided to write this ramble in the first place. I was recently at the Van Alen Institute for an emerging professional portfolio review and open discussion. The goal was to one, have four emerging professionals rapidly present their work to four jurors in a 'speed dating' style and two, discuss the current state of the profession. Minus the weird and awkward name of the event, it was very interesting and successful. They posted a video of it to Vimeo which I would highly recommend watching. There's some interesting dialogue between us, the emerging professionals and the jurors, the established professionals. It highlights in some ways a very polarized view of how we see ourselves fitting in, but also a very informative perspective.

So - at the end of the day - if you're bored in the 9-5 go change the world in the 5-9.

current work

I recently entered Designing-Action, an international competition focused on reimagining the East Bank of Nashville, TN. The site is a 75 acre brownfield, located just across the river from downtown Nashville and adjacent to LP Field, home of the Tennessee Titans. After 136 entries from 29 countries, I was selected as 1 of 17 finalists. 

 

Driven by the grand gesture of introducing a new, expanded waterfront, the concept of the proposal is: As a thriving community and precedent for brownfield redevelopment, Cumberland Corner  |  Nashville is envisioned as the new, hip destination centered on recreation and health. In blending a culture of fitness enthusiasm with sport, living, working, dining, healthcare, food production and a vibrant waterfront, the neighborhood becomes truly revolutionary.

 

Take a peek at some of the selected images* below.

 

*ALL IMAGES PROPERTY OF EDWARD KRAFCIK.

 

 

 

 

 

 



never forgotten

canopy and vertical form

think. model. animate

Sunday thought

"Simple design, intense content."

Edward Tufte

if you build it...

They will come... and they will continue to come. 

A recent Op Ed piece from the NY Times talks about the overwhelming success of the High Line and discusses the effect on the neighborhoods the park snakes through. The author observes, similar to what I have noticed in recent visits, that the park has become over crowded and a magnet for tourists. 

Further, the author brings up the radical transformation of West Chelsea that has spawned from the High Line. Where once working class people and light industry occupied homes and warehouses, over the years, these people have been pushed out and local, middle class shops and industry pushed out in favor of luxury housing and high end retail. Much of this gentrification has been brought on by the High Line, even as far as the rezoning of much of the neighborhood to allow for a multitude of new, multi-million dollar housing endeavors. 

So, from one vantage point, one can say the High Line has been a success, transforming a once neglected set of infrastructure and catalyzing a major change in the community. However, from the opposite view, the extreme success has contributed to one of the highest rates of gentrification in Manhattan. Also, if we imagine what the place will become in 5, 10, 15 years, it's possible to imagine major, global corporations to infiltrate the real estate. The author uses the example of Sephora and the idea that the current businesses, as trendy as they may be, just won't be able to compete financially with larger corporations.  

From the perspective of landscape architecture, it's amazing what one project is able to do - grab the attention of the world, the rich, the famous and the curious. It's also amazing how powerful the brand is and how much it will continue to strengthen. 

It makes me think, though, what if the design language was different from the beginning - what if the design wasn't as much about slick contemporary forms and attractive gathering spaces but instead about maintaining the wild vegetation that had grown over years and just allowing simple access? As the author points out, what if it was for the people living there at the moment, not for those who would eventually come?

How would that affect the way we are talking about the High Line now?

domino sugar factory: change on the brooklyn waterfront

A few years ago, I wrote a cultural landscape research paper on the Domino Sugar Factory located on the Williamsburg waterfront. The site, overlooking the Williamsburg Bridge and East River, with spectacular views to Manhattan, is a long sought after piece of real estate. I just learned from an article by the New York Daily News that the site was bought by a new developer (different from the ownership when I wrote my paper). 

I'm intrigued to see how the process unfolds. I'm certain that the controversy of the site will only intensify as development becomes a more concrete reality. Between the "promise" of affordable housing and maintaining the identity of the historical buildings and iconic "Domino Sugar" sign, there's a strong set of supporters both for and against the future plans. 

Keep checking back here for more updates. Depending on what happens over the next months/ year I may bring my research paper back to life and try to submit to a peer reviewed journal.

Would love to hear any of your initial thoughts on the site, the importance of waterfront development, what it means to Manhattan, to Brooklyn and specifically, to the changing character of Williamsburg. 

WTC memorial

Inspiration in the sky

Let it speak for itself

I saw this yesterday at an exhibition titled, cultureNOW, at the Boston Society of Architects Space. Since we seem to live in a time of excessively bullshitting everything that we do or creating some ridiculous post-rationalization of what we design, this is a refreshing quote.

The bike is simple, highlighted not by glam or extraneous description of this and that, but instead by its essential form, clean tones and necessary connections. No bullshit, just designed and built.

Every now and again I fall into the excessive bullshit category. This is a refreshing take on design. Just shut up and build it, let it speak for itself.

The beauty in light, material and texture

we can design, hopefully. but can we manage?

"What gets you promoted, doesn't make you a great leader or manager of people. When you start out in your career, how do you get promoted? You get stuff done. Whether you’re an accountant, a lawyer, or a tech exec, ( +/or designer), you do a lot of work and you do it well. What gets you promoted when you’re a manager of people? Getting a lot of people underneath you get stuff done."

This quote comes from an article I recently read from Forbes about why companies are terrible at selecting, retaining and motivating their talent. It's particularly relevant for the design community, since, as many of us know or find out after some time practicing, that designers are not the best managers. Seeing as we want to do great work, we really do need skills in project management and should be more conscious of how we utilize and treat members of a design team - including consultants and colleagues.

We go to school for design and learn the fundamentals of design - critical and creative thinking, process, documentation, etc. - as an individual. But, we don't often embrace team work until the last few semesters and usually don't like working in teams. We complain that part of the team doesn't work well, doesn't hold up their end of the work load.

However, the professional setting is this... all the time. As much as the biggest ego designer wants to admit he or she does it all, it's not true. We need a team of people to go from concept to construction. If we don't learn to manage that team, keep them focused and inspired then the final product will suffer. If not the final product, then it will wear on future projects.

So, if we want to think sustainably about the culture of our office, of our team, for this project and then many in the future it is vital to think about team management. Keep the best contractors on board to build the best ideas. The best ideas are generated by the best designers and staff of all levels. Keep them motivated and inspired.