The Royal Institute of British Architects or RIBA launched an architecture based research wiki today specializing in Journals, Online databases, Awards for architectural research, Funding, Conferences, Projects and Reading lists.
They call it RIBApedia
While the internet is a useful research tool the democratization of of public information banks, such as through Wikipedia, and the plethora of personal subjective websites (such as this one) make culling reliable information from the internet somewhat tricky. Not that print media is inherently more reliable, however there seems to be a more thorough vetting process for information as well as a more permanent record of topics that are discussed and opinions that are stated.
Now that RIBA is moving forward into the realm of information archiving and dissemination through a public "wiki" platform I hope that the RIBApedia can become a reliable and researched centralized location for gathering data. While this may eventually require quite a bit of work on RIBA's part as more and more "articles" are created, there is some level of responsibility assumed when one makes the claim that they hope to "become the online bible on study guidance, funding guidance on research and worldwide scholarships, and links to journals and professional societies." The Architect's Journal
Which is a good thing. A professional body taking the step to create a usable public domain of knowledge about the profession. I am very excited to witness RIBApedia grow and evolve into a reliable and usable reference material.
For you students though, don't forget your school's architecture/design library. There is a tremendous source right at your fingertips, usually full of materials that your professors have personally selected as being pertinent to the projects that you will be undertaking while in your specific curriculum.
Books! Check em out!
Friday, August 15, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Breaking into the market should leave you better off then breaking even.
An article on Treehugger.com grabbed my eye tonight as I saw a post entitled How Much Should Design Cost?.
The article itself was in reference to two separate views regarding the pricing of residential stock plans for sale. One approach was presented by David Wax of FreeGreen which offers "free" or "low cost" plans that can be modified (for an additional cost). However purchasing a set of documents for construction seems (overall) cheaper then having a house custom designed through the traditional method of hiring a designer up front.
The contrasting argument is made by Greg La Vardera who muses that the added cost of good design more than pays for itself and that by creating an available library (at a decent price point) that the general public will become better educated about the role of good design and realize its inherent value.
While both arguments begin with the idea of a stockplan however the differentiation of various models supposedly creates the standout argument that "you get what you pay for" which was my take from the whole discussion (even as a preconception).
ou don't have to read my over-generalized take on the topic, feel free to read/watch the interviews yourself and come to your own conclusion.
Personally this is a very interesting argument. My past experience leads me to agree that residential design is a valuable way for young, unestablished designers to build their portfolio and create their own language and technique. The interaction with a client and the various legislative/regulatory bodies give reason and purpose to various configurations. Once these houses are undergoing being designed in a vacuum to pander to either expected market value or a specific price point it becomes too easy to make them tentative and boring. In fact, it almost becomes necessary as the argument that would have been used to justify a non-standard idea would never have been created in the first place.
The severe lack of site specificity also is troublesome. Architects tend to forget about the site for some reason. I don't quite understand how some got through school not grasping that their structure is sitting somewhere, upon something. Once this disconnect has been created I worry what the success of the structure would be in/for a viable neighborhood. Unless these plans are for greenfield construction in the suburbs where contextual interaction is negated.
I suppose this is my argument against pre-fabricated design as well. It is this commodification of "design" which isn't architectural design or even industrial design (because ID usually takes into account the human scale, orientation and context). Pre-fab and StockPlans could be called Product Design. Chosen online, plucked from a white shelf, shipped in a truck and dropped off at (where) your front door (will be) without any concern to its surroundings (which makes me wonder about the "green-ness" of a generic system). The sense of scale and placement is to be chosen by one without the training (the client) who only has their own exposure (for better or worse) to base their decisions upon with limited guidance.
The argument that these prefab/stock plans are cheaper and therefore better is ludicrous when one considers that most of the population live in too much house, way more then they need and are saddled with the upkeep and maintenance costs. One may initially pay more to live in a well designed space but it is, after all, a well designed space. There is a reason people will pay a bit more for a better product. It lasts longer, functions better and is more fulfilling to experience.
Isn't that what we should be "selling" anyway?
The article itself was in reference to two separate views regarding the pricing of residential stock plans for sale. One approach was presented by David Wax of FreeGreen which offers "free" or "low cost" plans that can be modified (for an additional cost). However purchasing a set of documents for construction seems (overall) cheaper then having a house custom designed through the traditional method of hiring a designer up front.
The contrasting argument is made by Greg La Vardera who muses that the added cost of good design more than pays for itself and that by creating an available library (at a decent price point) that the general public will become better educated about the role of good design and realize its inherent value.
While both arguments begin with the idea of a stockplan however the differentiation of various models supposedly creates the standout argument that "you get what you pay for" which was my take from the whole discussion (even as a preconception).
ou don't have to read my over-generalized take on the topic, feel free to read/watch the interviews yourself and come to your own conclusion.
Personally this is a very interesting argument. My past experience leads me to agree that residential design is a valuable way for young, unestablished designers to build their portfolio and create their own language and technique. The interaction with a client and the various legislative/regulatory bodies give reason and purpose to various configurations. Once these houses are undergoing being designed in a vacuum to pander to either expected market value or a specific price point it becomes too easy to make them tentative and boring. In fact, it almost becomes necessary as the argument that would have been used to justify a non-standard idea would never have been created in the first place.
The severe lack of site specificity also is troublesome. Architects tend to forget about the site for some reason. I don't quite understand how some got through school not grasping that their structure is sitting somewhere, upon something. Once this disconnect has been created I worry what the success of the structure would be in/for a viable neighborhood. Unless these plans are for greenfield construction in the suburbs where contextual interaction is negated.
I suppose this is my argument against pre-fabricated design as well. It is this commodification of "design" which isn't architectural design or even industrial design (because ID usually takes into account the human scale, orientation and context). Pre-fab and StockPlans could be called Product Design. Chosen online, plucked from a white shelf, shipped in a truck and dropped off at (where) your front door (will be) without any concern to its surroundings (which makes me wonder about the "green-ness" of a generic system). The sense of scale and placement is to be chosen by one without the training (the client) who only has their own exposure (for better or worse) to base their decisions upon with limited guidance.
The argument that these prefab/stock plans are cheaper and therefore better is ludicrous when one considers that most of the population live in too much house, way more then they need and are saddled with the upkeep and maintenance costs. One may initially pay more to live in a well designed space but it is, after all, a well designed space. There is a reason people will pay a bit more for a better product. It lasts longer, functions better and is more fulfilling to experience.
Isn't that what we should be "selling" anyway?
Monday, August 11, 2008
The bottom line - pedestrian active streets increase storefront retail
It seems to be common sense. Increase the safety and comfort for street level pedestrian speed traffic and people will congregate, activating storefront retail, increasing community self policing and possibly raising home values. A new report from Transportation Alternatives attempts to quantify the value of smart street design and the creation of "livable streets".
The report states:
The report states:
- Quiet streets with no thru-traffic can boost property values up to 9%.
- Pedestrian zones can boost foot traffic by 20% and retail sales by 10%.
- Every decibel decrease in noise level raises property values .4%.
- Nearby community gardens increase the value of apartments by up to 7%.
- Traffic-calming can raise the value of homes by one-third.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
The burden of being online
I received criticism today for not being as up to date on the many activities and hoopla going on around the town. I have no problem with being asked to post information about a certain event or to comment on a specific subject. Point of fact, when asked to I usually oblige if only because I then do not have to scrounge up a topic by myself.
Most of the posts and topics that I mention or comment upon are events or happenings that I have to verify with the many local organizations themselves to find out the particulars. Due to time constraints (there goes that darn "life" getting in the way) I don't have time to check with every single organization in this city constantly. Therefore, if I don't get a heads up or it is an event I usually don't go to, it will slip through the cracks.
I would like to apologize for that.
However, let me point out the variety of ways in which I attempt to utilize technology so that if you find mention of something you are interested in, you can get more information yourself;
-I like to link to the topic of discussion if there is a pertinent website. This particular example (the Murray Hill Artwalk) has taken down their website which makes it hard to keep track of when their next event is, hence my comments on the subject becoming increasingly lacking and eventually nonexistent.
-The existence of the internet itself. Chances are you found this website itself by utilizing search engines or external links from other websites. Keep on truckin' with that exciting technology! Chances are you can find what you are looking for if you put only half the tenacity you utilize for name calling into actually looking things up.
In order to foster feelings of goodwill I have even taken the time to use a search engine to find more information for the specific (anonymous) poster to find the information they are looking for: Little Italy Guide from Cleveland.com. You may need to pick up a phone and call someone to ask why their website is down or how they expect people to know about their un-posted events instead of resorting to aggressive and over-blown internet interaction which, while sometimes hilarious, is sort of rude.
In conclusion, to all you event planners out there let this go as a lesson to you. If you want someone to mention your event, let them know of it happening. Keep your event sites up to date and try to incorporate some sort of static resource of information so that the fine people of this city can come and visit you when you want us to.
Feel free to email me from the contacts link above to let me know of your events. If they are design/architecture/sustainable/beer-wine-food/bike/awesome related, chances are I will pass the information along.
Most of the posts and topics that I mention or comment upon are events or happenings that I have to verify with the many local organizations themselves to find out the particulars. Due to time constraints (there goes that darn "life" getting in the way) I don't have time to check with every single organization in this city constantly. Therefore, if I don't get a heads up or it is an event I usually don't go to, it will slip through the cracks.
I would like to apologize for that.
However, let me point out the variety of ways in which I attempt to utilize technology so that if you find mention of something you are interested in, you can get more information yourself;
-I like to link to the topic of discussion if there is a pertinent website. This particular example (the Murray Hill Artwalk) has taken down their website which makes it hard to keep track of when their next event is, hence my comments on the subject becoming increasingly lacking and eventually nonexistent.
-The existence of the internet itself. Chances are you found this website itself by utilizing search engines or external links from other websites. Keep on truckin' with that exciting technology! Chances are you can find what you are looking for if you put only half the tenacity you utilize for name calling into actually looking things up.
In order to foster feelings of goodwill I have even taken the time to use a search engine to find more information for the specific (anonymous) poster to find the information they are looking for: Little Italy Guide from Cleveland.com. You may need to pick up a phone and call someone to ask why their website is down or how they expect people to know about their un-posted events instead of resorting to aggressive and over-blown internet interaction which, while sometimes hilarious, is sort of rude.
In conclusion, to all you event planners out there let this go as a lesson to you. If you want someone to mention your event, let them know of it happening. Keep your event sites up to date and try to incorporate some sort of static resource of information so that the fine people of this city can come and visit you when you want us to.
Feel free to email me from the contacts link above to let me know of your events. If they are design/architecture/sustainable/beer-wine-food/bike/awesome related, chances are I will pass the information along.
Cleveland Competition II (about damn time)
For those of us who have been eagerly awaiting the second installment of the annual Cleveland Competition have finally received word that all rockets are go! and the entry brief is slated to be released August 22, 2008 ( a mere 11 days away).
The focus this year is entitled "Interplay" and pertains to the reactivation of residual urban spaces to foster cultural, economic and community interaction. The selected site is the northern terminus of West 65th of the Detroit Shoreway Neighborhood where there is also an access path to Edgewater Park and Wendy Park.
More information will be released on August 22nd but in the meantime get those pencils sharpened and grab something to doodle on. I hope Clevelanders can step it up this year. I know a lot of people talk about how they would like to be involved in their city and create opportunities to show their ideas and capabilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)