Rule number one according to Sir Michael Bichard the current director of the UK's Design Council.
The Design Council is a government organization that strives to "...helping business become more successful, public services more efficient and designers more effective." On their site they have a nice collection of case studies regarding challenging the status quo for good design.
Bichard has also helped come up with these "Five Rules of Design"
1. Great design can change the world and move people
2. If you think good design is expensive you should look at the real cost of bad design
3. Design, creativity and innovation are essential if we are to meet the global challenges of sustainable development
4. Design is not just about products and communications, it's also increasingly in the services we receive or buy
5. To consume design is a creative act - and everyone can be creative!
While I may not agree entirely with all the rules (perhaps withholding any consumption is an act of design by inaction) I find it interesting that a governmental body would create a "national strategic body for design" and am curious to delve into how that sort of agency would work in the United States. It isn't that they police design, calling out what is considered poor ideas, but instead utilize funding and agency research to further design base businesses which almost sounds akin to National Endowment of the Arts but is more business related.
Instead of being used as a reference guide or a council of decision makers per say, the Design Council instead acts as an information aggregator and business advisor which attempts to help businesses boost competitiveness through the use of good design strategies.
I thought this went pretty well with the current posts, especially Roger K. Lewis's article on design review boards
Fun Resources:
Downloaded Design Council Resources
Ganked from Core 77
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Core 77 - Greener Gadgets Design Competition
Greener Gadgets Design Competition
Can we save the world through good design? A lot of people think so. I know I would like to think so.
Core 77 and the Greener Gadgets Conference have announced a design innovation competition "to address the issues of energy, carbon footprint, health and toxicity, new materials, product lifecycle and social development."
Submissions can be accepted until January 27th, 2008 at 11.59 pm EST
Finalists will be notified January 29th, 2008
Finalists will be shown at the February 1st, 2008 Greener Gadgets Conference in New York City.
Granted the competition seems to be laid on quickly but I think there is plenty of time to finesse out some of those ideas I bet most of you have kicking around your noggins. Prizes are US$2500 for first and US$1000 for both of the runners up.
Intent:
Design Brief
We're inviting designers to explore the concept of "Greener Gadgets." Designs should seek to minimize the environmental impact of consumer electronic devices at any stage in the product lifecycle. Areas of sustainability to consider include:
1. Energy
2. Materials / Lifecycle / Recycling
3. Social & educational development
Participants are encouraged to consider their designs as part of the entire product ecosystem, and should think as holistically as possible. Designers may choose to focus their entries on a particular area of human enterprise (learning, playing, communicating, etc.), or a particular context (work, home, school, etc.), a particular material, or a specific device. Entries may also seek to create new paradigms for products and services
Ultimately, we are looking for "great gadgets" of the greener kind.
Can we save the world through good design? A lot of people think so. I know I would like to think so.
Core 77 and the Greener Gadgets Conference have announced a design innovation competition "to address the issues of energy, carbon footprint, health and toxicity, new materials, product lifecycle and social development."
Submissions can be accepted until January 27th, 2008 at 11.59 pm EST
Finalists will be notified January 29th, 2008
Finalists will be shown at the February 1st, 2008 Greener Gadgets Conference in New York City.
Granted the competition seems to be laid on quickly but I think there is plenty of time to finesse out some of those ideas I bet most of you have kicking around your noggins. Prizes are US$2500 for first and US$1000 for both of the runners up.
Intent:
Design Brief
We're inviting designers to explore the concept of "Greener Gadgets." Designs should seek to minimize the environmental impact of consumer electronic devices at any stage in the product lifecycle. Areas of sustainability to consider include:
1. Energy
2. Materials / Lifecycle / Recycling
3. Social & educational development
Participants are encouraged to consider their designs as part of the entire product ecosystem, and should think as holistically as possible. Designers may choose to focus their entries on a particular area of human enterprise (learning, playing, communicating, etc.), or a particular context (work, home, school, etc.), a particular material, or a specific device. Entries may also seek to create new paradigms for products and services
Ultimately, we are looking for "great gadgets" of the greener kind.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
A Public Arbiter of Good Design - Design Review Boards
What is the basis for the arbitrary regulation of design?
I mean seemingly arbitrary regulation. I suppose that statement stems from the provision that unless design aesthetics reflect a thought process inherent within a specific project than the application of "design" as a commodity, is relatively arbitrary. Which of course must be justified and judged by a relatively arbitrary collection of judges (the design review board) that may or may not render their decision based upon a understanding of intent any more than personal preference.
Roger K. Lewis of the Washingtonpost argues that while land use and zoning regulations have a practical and legal backing most design reviews are hard to quantify. Personal taste and opinion may unduly influence critique in such a manner as to be detrimental to the community that would be affected by a proposed project. Once the possibility of political and personal intents are added to the equation the entire design review process becomes even more dubious.
There are the classic murmurs how those with an intimate familiarity with design should take the time and effort to populate their community's design review boards, however many people find these positions an easy way to feel important/connected and to profess personal ideologies upon a community that may or may not follow the same beliefs. One colleague stated, when I had considered joining my local design review committee (which I ended up not submitting a CV for), was that I "must not have enough work to keep me busy" with the assertion that those on the review boards are not talented enough to find enough work so instead they critique (similar to the adage that those that cannot do, teach) which is such a seemingly bitter statement that it doesn't even deserve a rebuttal.
Instead I agree with Lewis, that design review boards would do well to create a set of community standards and ideals, to maintain a high level of professionalism and intellect on the board coupled with a passion for the community that would be indicative of a strong belief system and personal reverence for the neighborhood that are, in effect, being protected. Only through creating a raised level of expectations for design can communities elevate the inferred value that is placed upon aesthetics and the rigor of problem solving. Whether the boards should be elected positions or even how this level of decorum would be maintained is beyond me. I don't profess to have all the answers (all the time) but I do suggest that systems in place and effect are continuously questioned in order to prove that they are working to our benefit and that they are still effective.
It isn't so much that I feel design review boards are a flawed system, or even that my personal interaction with them has been awful. Instead I found the article interesting in the assertion of how the system could be improved to the advantage of the design community and the 'city' as a whole.
I mean seemingly arbitrary regulation. I suppose that statement stems from the provision that unless design aesthetics reflect a thought process inherent within a specific project than the application of "design" as a commodity, is relatively arbitrary. Which of course must be justified and judged by a relatively arbitrary collection of judges (the design review board) that may or may not render their decision based upon a understanding of intent any more than personal preference.
Roger K. Lewis of the Washingtonpost argues that while land use and zoning regulations have a practical and legal backing most design reviews are hard to quantify. Personal taste and opinion may unduly influence critique in such a manner as to be detrimental to the community that would be affected by a proposed project. Once the possibility of political and personal intents are added to the equation the entire design review process becomes even more dubious.
There are the classic murmurs how those with an intimate familiarity with design should take the time and effort to populate their community's design review boards, however many people find these positions an easy way to feel important/connected and to profess personal ideologies upon a community that may or may not follow the same beliefs. One colleague stated, when I had considered joining my local design review committee (which I ended up not submitting a CV for), was that I "must not have enough work to keep me busy" with the assertion that those on the review boards are not talented enough to find enough work so instead they critique (similar to the adage that those that cannot do, teach) which is such a seemingly bitter statement that it doesn't even deserve a rebuttal.
Instead I agree with Lewis, that design review boards would do well to create a set of community standards and ideals, to maintain a high level of professionalism and intellect on the board coupled with a passion for the community that would be indicative of a strong belief system and personal reverence for the neighborhood that are, in effect, being protected. Only through creating a raised level of expectations for design can communities elevate the inferred value that is placed upon aesthetics and the rigor of problem solving. Whether the boards should be elected positions or even how this level of decorum would be maintained is beyond me. I don't profess to have all the answers (all the time) but I do suggest that systems in place and effect are continuously questioned in order to prove that they are working to our benefit and that they are still effective.
It isn't so much that I feel design review boards are a flawed system, or even that my personal interaction with them has been awful. Instead I found the article interesting in the assertion of how the system could be improved to the advantage of the design community and the 'city' as a whole.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Harnessing the awesome heat power of...people
We have all been in places where the crush of human bodies has resulted in uncomfortable temperatures. In some places this unavoidable occurrence can only be countered with a large mechanical cooling system.
Until someone discovers a way to utilize this energy.
The Stockholm Central Station is configuring a mechanical system that instead of simply removing the excess heat from station they intend to capture this energy to heat an adjacent office building.
The proposed system will utilize a closed loop heat transfer system that will distribute water warmed up by people in the Central Station to a new office building that will house a small hotel and a few shops.
The additional cost of the pipes and pumps is not, by itself, cheap. However projections of system use offer a 20% reduction in energy use from a standard heating system that when added to overall cost of the building makes the added cost seem "not that much" according to Karl Sundholm of Jerhuset, a property administration company run by Swedish government.
If proved viable restructuring building systems to take advantage of the occupant usage instead of merely treating building program as a 'problem to be solved' may become an effective way to structure design solutions for occupied projects. Besides generating power (don't forget to check out this link on crowd farming) I wonder what other potential solutions are in the proposal phase...
Until someone discovers a way to utilize this energy.
The Stockholm Central Station is configuring a mechanical system that instead of simply removing the excess heat from station they intend to capture this energy to heat an adjacent office building.
The proposed system will utilize a closed loop heat transfer system that will distribute water warmed up by people in the Central Station to a new office building that will house a small hotel and a few shops.
The additional cost of the pipes and pumps is not, by itself, cheap. However projections of system use offer a 20% reduction in energy use from a standard heating system that when added to overall cost of the building makes the added cost seem "not that much" according to Karl Sundholm of Jerhuset, a property administration company run by Swedish government.
If proved viable restructuring building systems to take advantage of the occupant usage instead of merely treating building program as a 'problem to be solved' may become an effective way to structure design solutions for occupied projects. Besides generating power (don't forget to check out this link on crowd farming) I wonder what other potential solutions are in the proposal phase...
Monday, January 07, 2008
Global Warming as Risk Management - "How It All Ends"
One doesn't have to win a Nobel prize to have a valid view on issues of international import. By the same token any nut job with a webcam can make a video (and every kook with an internet connection can start a blog), however when issues are presented in an intelligent manner that is based upon logic more than simple emotion and when the issue is arguably one of the most important issues of our lifetime (possibly for the species), I would find it hard to argue that you couldn't spare 10 minutes of your time.
How It All Ends video (youtube for you poor saps who have it blocked at work)
The first video is simply a basis for the argument of whether or not humans should take action to fight global warming. The next of the series deals with what one can do, the risk management aspects of choices, etc.
While only a simplified exercise in demonstrable logic it does concisely emphasize the point that it would be better to do something and be wrong than do nothing and be screwed. What can I say? I am a sucker for whiteboard and a logic matrix.
How It All Ends video (youtube for you poor saps who have it blocked at work)
The first video is simply a basis for the argument of whether or not humans should take action to fight global warming. The next of the series deals with what one can do, the risk management aspects of choices, etc.
While only a simplified exercise in demonstrable logic it does concisely emphasize the point that it would be better to do something and be wrong than do nothing and be screwed. What can I say? I am a sucker for whiteboard and a logic matrix.
First Tremont Art Walk/Hop of 2008
Maybe?
I checked the website but nothing is listed for 2008. I haven't been to Lucky's Cafe in over a month either so I haven't run across any of those card type things. Hot cards I think the kids call them.
Oh well. I suppose there isn't any harm in going and checking it out.
January 11th, 2008
Tremont Area of Cleveland Ohio
I checked the website but nothing is listed for 2008. I haven't been to Lucky's Cafe in over a month either so I haven't run across any of those card type things. Hot cards I think the kids call them.
Oh well. I suppose there isn't any harm in going and checking it out.
January 11th, 2008
Tremont Area of Cleveland Ohio
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)