Erik Dahl

This is part 2 in a 4 part series. You can see the first post here. In this second post, I will be exploring the next set of 5 principles in 101 Things I Learned in Architecture School that really resonated with me.

(19) Draw Hierarchically.

When drawing in any medium, never work at a “100% level of detail” from one end of the sheet toward the other, blank end of the sheet. Instead, start with the most general elements of the composition and work gradually toward the more specific aspects of it. Begin by laying out the entire sheet. Use light guide lines, geometric alignments, visual gut-checks, and other methods to cross-check the proportions, relationships, and placement of the elements you are drawing. When you achieve some success at this schematic level, move to the next level of detail. If you find yourself focusing on details in a specific area of the drawing, indulge briefly, then move to other areas of the drawing. Evaluate your success continually, making local adjustments in the context of the entire sheet.

This one is great. It seems relatively obvious. If you replace the word “drawing” in the above passage with information architecture, interaction design, or design research and the author could be speaking about what I do everyday.

One of the strategies that I’ve found that has works very well is to start in the middle of something and move outwards at a mid-level of fidelity. Try to flesh everything out first and then work into more details.

(23) Reality may be engaged subjectively, by which one presumes a oneness with the object of his concern, or objectively, by which a detachment is presumed.

Objectivity is the province of the scientist, technician, mechanic, logician, and mathematician. Subjectivity is the milieu of the artist, musician, mystic, and free spirit. Citizens of modern cultures are inclined to value the objective view–and hence it may tend to be your world view–but both modes of engagement are crucial to understanding and creating architecture.

This one hit straight to the core of a belief of mine that has been fundamental for as long as I can remember. It been very important in my life to view things from both an objective and subjective perspective simultaneously. In design research and ethnographic research this manifests itself by looking at both the emic and etic perspectives, or relying on both analysis and synthesis of data. Or also constantly balancing using deductive, inductive and abductive logic. Its vitally important that design research both “inspire imagination” and “inform intuition.”

Analysis without synthesis can often lead to narrowly focused solutions that don’t solve the real problem. On the other hand, synthesis without analysis can often lead to ideas or solutions that are not grounded in reality.

(26) Good designers are fast on their feet.

As the design process advances, complications inevitably arise-structural problems, fluctuating client requests, difficulties in resolving fire egress, pieces of the program forgotten and rediscovered, new understandings of old information, and much more. Your parti–once a wondrous prodigy–will suddenly face failure.

A poor designer will attempt to hold onto a failed parti and patch local fixes onto the problem areas, thus losing the integrity of the whole. Other may feel defeated and abandon the pursuit of an integrated whole. But a good designer understands the erosion of a parti as a helpful indication of where a project needs to go next.

When complications in the design process ruin your scheme, change–or if necessary, abandon–your parti. But don’t abandon having a parti, and don’t dig in tenaciously in defense of a scheme that no longer works. Create another parti that holistically incorporates all that you now know about the building.

I see this all the time. Designers trying to hold onto an idea that worked at one level of granularity, but not at another. There is a time and a place to hold onto ideas, and a time to let go of them. As a designer, I always try to create an information architecture that creates a systematic solution for the specific design problem at hand.

(27) Soft ideas, soft lines; hard ideas, hard lines

Fat markers, charcoal, pastels, crayons, paint, soft pencils, and other loose or soft implements are valuable tools for exploring conceptual ideas early in the design process, as by their nature they tend to encourage broad thinking and deny fine-grained decisions. Fine-point markers and sharp pencils become more useful as the design process moves closer to a more highly resolved plan. Value drawings can help express nuances and subtleties.

Hard-line drawings–drawings drafted to scale with a straightedge or computer program–are best for conveying information that is decisive, specific, and quantitative, such as final floor plans or detailed wall sections. They can be occasionally useful in schematic design, such as when you need to test out the dimensional workability of a design concept. When overused as a design tool, however, computer drafting programs can encourage the endless generation of options rather than foster a deepening understanding of the design problem you wish to solve.

Ah, an oldie, but a goodie: the medium is the message. The tools we use have a very strong influence on how we think about what we are doing and creating.

(28) A good designer isn’t afraid to throw away a good idea.

Just because an interesting idea occurs to you doesn’t mean it belogns in the building you are designing. Subject every idea, brainstorm, random musing, and helpful suggestion to careful, critical consideration. Your goal as a designer should be to create an integrated whole, not to incorporate all the best features in your building whether or not they work together.

Think of a parti as an author employs a thesis, or as a composer employs a musical theme: not every idea a creator conjures up belongs in the work at hand! Save your good but ill-fitting ideas for another time and project–and with the knowledge that they might not work then, either.

I was watching Project Runway the other day, and noticed another manifestation of this same idea. One of the designers was criticized from not “editing her ideas.” As designers, we have to know when enough is enough, and when a great idea is appropriate for the project at hand.

What’s your take on these five concepts? Do they resonate with you too, or do you disagree with them? Let me know what you think.

No related posts.

This post is tagged