Recently I completed writing our office’s Design Principles, a guiding document for how we are to approach every project in our office, from bus stops on Anaheim Street to residential towers in Taiwan. Architecture and planning can be a subjective profession, and in any office there can be divergent agendas, perspectives and approaches. Establishing a basic framework for design, however, gets everyone on the same page with concise yet general direction that allows a designer the flexibility to create innovative architecture while following a common philosophy. The document also gives direction about the projects our office should take on and the clients we should work with.
Our design principles were actually a consolidation of three subject-based criteria – urban design, building design and sustainability – written a few years ago. Between redundancy of the three and the office’s desire to integrate architecture and urban design, the consolidation of the three only made sense. Our design principles provide a checklist for various stages of the design’s development to make sure that as a project evolves it retains its original goals. Such a document is essential for any sort of design firm, but is also a useful tool when presenting concepts to clients or the community.
This overarching document containing our philosophy leads directly to the design criteria we create for each project. Of course, the criteria we devise for each project incorporates features specific to the context, local regulations and existing infrastructure. And these criteria are devised even before pencil hits paper or the mouse is first clicked, in advance of any sort of design work. This gives us the opportunity to be sure we are in agreement with our client before we start down a path that might or might not be what they need.
When there is the opportunity for public participation the design criteria also allow us to present our initial thoughts to the community and get its input. Sometimes we have gone out to community presentations with little more than the design criteria, analytical diagrams and site photos all describing our understanding of the project site. This gives us the chance to collect additional information from those who are often the most informed about the project site. Often this allows for more a more productive conversation. Later in the public process it also allows the community to call us out if a later design does not appear to meet those initial goals.
When working with the city, and trying to gain approval or pull a building permit, having project-specific design criteria often helps when there is question about design elements. When there is a misunderstanding or a disagreement we can at least show the basis of the design. Having a set of design principles helps in these negotiations, whether there is absolute agreement or a compromise.
With so many benefits to having design criteria, it is troubling how little we see such tools employed in community presentations. Over the past several years, as I have been active in the community and also as I have provided architectural peer review services for various cities, rarely have I seen any sort of document, project narrative, design criteria or development goals that help describe why a project is designed the way it is.
There is not necessarily any malice on the part of the design or development team. In some cases there has simply not been that level of thought on the part of the architect when designing the project. Ultimately, however, not including these ideas is in a sense a lack of transparency in the design process. It’s like not “showing your work” when doing a mathematical equation; sure, the answer is right, but how do I know it is not another’s work? And more importantly, if the answer is not right, where did it go wrong?
It is much easier to correct the problem when you know how it happened. Even better, it is likely easier to correct a problem before it happens by having the ability to review the basis of design in the beginning. It will save the architect having to alter a design that they might be wedded to. It saves the City (and everyone else) the heartburn of rejecting a developed design. And it could save the developer the resources of having potentially to start over.
I encourage those who participate in the public outreach process for new projects, both private development and civic infrastructure, to ask for the basis of design, the basic principles animating the design, the design criteria, or however these ideas might be articulated. For those on committees, commissions and councils, I would ask that you demand that the presentation of design criteria be part of any submission requirements for your review. It might be even more important than the floor plans and the colored elevations you will see during project presentations. The beginning is the principles, the middle is the drawings, and the end is the finished structure. Seeing how the principles turn into the drawings will help determine how the drawings are realized in the structure, in accordance with those first principles.