Smart Technology

It has been my tendency not to discuss products on my blog.  However, there have been some recent products that I believe are especially pertinent to other ideas on this blog.  So for this particular entry I have decided to discuss them.

Aside from all the iProducts (iPhone, iPod, iPad, etc) there has been an increase in talk about smart transportation options.  These include cars and bikes that drive themselves.  (For some reason the idea of a bike driving itself is a bit more strange to me than a car.)  There are a variety of potential problems that occur when things are taken out of user control.  For example, in the Doctor Who episode entitled "The Sontaran Stratagem," the cars can drive themselves using a system called Atmos and end up being programmed from an off-site location to drive individuals into the water, ensuing in their eventual death.    This is a similar problem that I have brought up repeatedly with architectural design.  When architectural design neglects to include the user a variety of problems arise, such as outlined with the University of Chicago's Mansuetto library addition.  There seems to be a thin line between creating products that allow for more simplicity in our lives, on the one hand, and taking control away from the user.  To give some other examples apparently when the garage door opener was first put into place there was no way to designate the opener to a specific garage.  Therefore when one pressed the opener while driving up to the driveway one might accidentally open the neighbor's garage door.  This causes issues with security.  Similar issues with security have been discussed more recently with the idea that one's smartphone can control medical devices.  As this article states

“[Increasingly,] a smartphone links patients’ bodies and doctors’ computers, which in turn are connected to the Internet, which in turn is connected to any smartphone anywhere. The new devices could put the management of an individual’s internal organs, in the hands of every hacker, online scammer, and digital vandal on Earth.” [...]"

The idea that some hacker could screw up my relative's next surgery is relatively petrifying to me.

In discussing the user once again I must pause this time to explain, as it was recently brought to my attention, that I do not believe all users are at fault for not having control over their environments.  I understand that most users interact with environments that they have no control over designing or developing.  I believe this to be a problem that architects should try to rectify.  Obviously in the current state of things not everyone has the means to hire an architect nor the means to have control over their environment.  I believe these things should change.

An additional point that this discussion brings up is the ever-growing definition of design.  Just from the examples given above design includes transportation, medicine, architecture, telecommunication, and music, just to name a few.  As discussed in Bruno Latour's article entitled "A Cautious Prometheus?  A Few Steps toward a Philosophy of Design," "design has been extended from the details of daily objects to cities, landscapes, nations, cultures, bodies, genes, and, as I will argue, to nature itself –which is  in great need of being re-designed."  Design is clearly no longer limited to just product design.

Extreme Makeover Home Edition

I have a confession to make, I love Extreme Makeover Home Edition.  Granted it's a rather silly show.  It's organized the exact same way every time, aside from the family (that obviously changes every episode) you see one episode you've seen them all (kind of like a Bollywood film but that's a totally different ball game).  I love the idea of giving a family in need a house.  However, there are some things that I have always worried about.  First of all, finances.  It seems like there are some episodes where they end up paying off the mortgage and others where they don't mention it.  I would like to think that the episodes where they don't mention it the reason is because the family didn't have a mortgage to pay to begin with and therefore they are just being given the house for free.  Does this then mean the construction team is designing and building the house for charity?  Also, what happens to utilities?  Several houses are net zero houses where the house has solar panels, rain water collection areas, etc so that the utilities are already paid for.  But there are houses where this isn't the case.  These houses must have utility bills that are much higher than what the family is used to paying for.  These financial questions make me wonder what percentage of families who have been on this show still have these homes?

My second issue is with children's rooms.  Children's rooms in these houses are often totally decked out.  The kid loves trains, for example, so they design a train in the middle of the room with a child's bed built into it.  Only problem is the kid is 5.  The kid isn't going to be 5 forever.  So what happens when the child grows up?  Why not make a room that is a little more suitable to growing children, like the parents rooms tend to be?

Finally I am concerned with these houses in relation to Not So Big House (which I know I have been discussing a lot recently).  Many of the families on this show are large families living in small spaces.  They share rooms, often times with many individuals in the same room.  When the design team comes along and builds the family a new home, they often design one where every individual in the family has their own room.  This astounds the family as they've often never had their own room.  However, I believe this could also cause a psychological problem.  Now they have a house with rooms that are not used, and can go long periods of time (unlike the old house) and not see anyone.  This could cause problems of loneliness.  So instead of building such a large home for the family why not build a functioning Not So Big House, which would be much more suitable for the family and probably cause them less culture shock (moving from the old to new house)?

Back to School - Alternative Practices

Two days ago I happened upon a new book that just came out, in direct relation to my first class of the semester tonight with entitled Alternative Practice, entitled Future Practice.  As mentioned in the blurb, this is a book regarding the variety of directions individuals take after receiving training in architecture.  As mentioned, "year after year, as new graduates embark on their careers, more and more of them are questioning the traditional role of the architect, even before working in a firm or taking other supposedly required steps toward licensure."  This seems almost identical to the description of Alternative Practices, a course that "offers students the opportunity to investigate the range of emerging career roles in architecture and allied fields, including both shifting opportunities within "traditional" practice as well as the broad range of career choices that can usefully build on a foundation in architecture."  Indeed upon forwarding the blurb to my advisor I discovered that articles from the author are often used in her class and she looks forward to reading the book, as do I as soon as it comes out.

This book does not, however, deal with how to set up a non-traditional firm, advice that might be referenced in a course I'm currently waitlisted for entitled Launching Design Practices.  Interestingly enough, as the blurb points out, these alternative practices (so to speak) are rooted in one primary concern: "the various practitioners want to improve conditions for people."  This is something that I too share with these practitioners, though, as I point out time and again, I wish to incorporate this into all facets of architecture, not just the smaller firms or the non-profit organizations.  It will be interesting to find how this class, and the book in the future, affect my currently naive outlook on architecture and architects in general.

Everlasting Not So Big House?

As we ring in the new year, online Architectural websites post a variety of articles on 2012 including the "Buzz-worthy Buildings of 2012" many of which were in China including the Dalian International Conference Center where I used to live in Dalian, China.  Looking through these articles I happened upon one that seemed particularly interesting on Endangered Buildings We Hope Make it through 2013.  Many of these buildings were used for their original purpose only for brief periods of time before being abandoned and vandalized, including The Casa sobre el Arroyo by Amancio Williams, National Art Schools by Ricardo Porro, and works by Frank Lloyd Wright.  As someone who used to work as an interpreter for the Robie House in Hyde Park I feel I have a unique understanding of this dilemma.  Many of these buildings are amazing works of art, like beautiful portraits which Frank Lloyd Wright compared the Robie House to as he tried to save it from demolition.  On the other hand these buildings were totally useless for their original intent.  The Robie House, for example, had a basement that flooded and close to no storage space whatsoever, these are just two examples of the lists of reasons I can see for these buildings to no longer be wanted as anything else aside from a Historic Landmark.

The fact that these uniquely designed buildings are now endangered makes me question the designing of unique buildings.  In constructing a Not So Big House as opposed to a house that looks very similar in many ways to that of its neighbors does one diminish the opportunity for such a house to be resold?  Is one not simply increasing the likelihood that such a building would be torn down in order to be built to someone else's needs?  Should we, like was being done in Dalian when I left, construct buildings that won't last longer than 10 years in order that they can be built to a certain user's needs and then changed for another user?

Yet at the same time I suppose buildings, just like any other artifact, become endangered all the time and it is more important to focus on other aspects, such as the quality of material.  One rather common place material that has recently been changed is concrete.  The prevalence of this material makes it necessary to find ways to use less of it in more efficient ways, as such individuals have done recently.

Philadelphia Museum of Art Experience

I've been to a large number of museums in my time, throughout Asia, Europe and the US.  But throughout these museums I've never experienced one like the Philadelphia Museum of Art.  It is not uncommon for a museum to decorate its walls like the below image that I took at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

This image may at first glance appear to include elements of Trompe-l'œil, "art technique involving realistic imagery in order to create the optical illusion that the depicted objects exist in three dimensions."  However, this is not an optical illusion.  One can actually walk into the next room and around the columns seen below.

It is also not uncommon for rooms of a museum to be decorated in a certain way.  For example, walking through a Frank Lloyd Wright home and having part of it roped off as it displays the look of the original room with objects and furniture in it somewhat like the below image of a Chinese building, which I have seen many versions of (though all in Asia).

It is also not uncommon to see replicas of rooms (like the above) or individuals, similar to a wax museum.  I do question how some of these elements are included.  For example, was the below image built into the walls when the museum was originally constructed?  Or was it added as a later renovation?  Or what?  I also seem to be unable to find much literature written on these aspects of the museum.

However, one thing that I can say I have never seen is a building inside another building.  The Philadelphia Museum of Art is home to the tea house of architect Ögi Rodö which originally stood on the grounds of the architect's private residence in Tokyo.  It was sold to the museum in 1928 and installed in 1957, complete with growing bamboo and flowing water.

This is no replica.  It is the actual original architecture of a tea house within an art museum, which is amazing to me.  While none of these elements is unique in and of itself the combination of all of these elements within the museum gave me a museum experience truly unlike any other.  This is an experience that allows one to "Travel to the far east and around the world without leaving Philadelphia."  The experience moved me almost to tears as I recalled all of the places I had been in my travels like these.  Along with these architectural elements the museum had collections of Picasso, Manet, Monet, Renoir, and Van Gogh as well as Contemporary Modern Art and a collection of Arms and Armory.  This museum truly has something for everyone and I would definitely recommend it as an experience for everyone.  (Note: All images included here were taken by myself.)

One-Stall Restrooms

This is actually a post that I wrote back in August, 2011 but I apparently didn't post it.  So I am posting it now.

The last time I, a cis- (not transgendered) female, went into a multi-stall men’s restroom was on occasion as a small child when the only person to take care of me was my father.  On the other hand, to this day I often choose to frequent one-stall men’s restrooms.  What’s the point in standing in a long line outside the designated women’s restroom when the men’s restroom is no different and is designed for only one individual at a time?  Why not just use the men’s restroom?  Aside from the occasional strange look one may receive when exiting the one stall to find a male waiting to use the room, who honestly cares?

So far this may seem to be a gender-related issue.  However, this is also a disability-related issue.  In June of 2011, I visited a restaurant called Tasty Dog in Oak Park, Illinois with my family.  As the daughter of a wheelchair-bound mother with Multiple Sclerosis, I immediately recognized the wheelchair accessible entrance and found a table where my mother could join the friends that my parents were in town visiting.  Thinking wheelchair accessibility to no longer be a problem for the venue, I relaxed and went about the daily routine of eating a meal with my family.  We went up to the counter to order something to eat, sat down and had a great conversation with our friends.  We ended up sitting and chatting so long that my mother eventually had to use the restroom, again not surprising.  I walked to the one-stall bathroom to open the door for my mother and see if she needed my help.  She did not, so I left her to use the restroom in privacy.  Soon there was a female standing outside the door waiting for my mother to finish using the restroom, my father suggested that I let her know that it might be better for her to use the men’s so I went over and told the woman.  She was very kind, thanked me for the information and used the men’s room.  This happened several times until I met with a disgruntled woman who refused to use the men’s and insisted on waiting for the women’s room.  Despite my warning and explanation to the woman, she became upset with me and went to the restaurant employees to complain about my mother.  Soon the employee came out to investigate the matter herself, I again explained that my mother was handicapped and often needed a longer period of time to use the restroom.  Fortunately, the employee understood and explained to the customer that she would have to wait.  Of all the years my mother has been handicapped I have never experienced such animosity over a simple matter.  What would have happened had the employee not understood?  I do not even want to think about the embarrassment this may have caused my mother.  It is from these experiences and my own personal experiences in both men’s and women’s one stall restrooms that leads me to implore owners to reconsider labeling one stall restrooms with gender neutral signs.  If one is in need of a sign at all for these rooms, please consider the family signs or signs for both men and women that one can often get from the same locations.

Architectural Drawing

One issue that I have with architectural drawing was mentioned briefly in a recent article from the Journal of Architectural Education entitled On Obeying the Rules by Michael Webb.  The first paragraph of this article is especially interesting to me.  The author states "We, the survivors of architecture school curricula, are all too familiar with the syntax that applies to the making of orthographic projection drawings. We follow a universally accepted set of conventions that, when applied, makes drawings easier to read—at least by other survivors. For example, the section and the elevation are to be placed above the plan, not beneath it; or lines defining the edge of a plane should be stronger than those not defining the edge.  But if the depiction of motion, that fluctuating concern of architects since the Futurist movement, is what we would wish to represent in our drawings, then a relentless adherence to those conventions results in the drawing becoming not easier to read, but interestingly difficult."  In other words, while these universally accepted set of conventions allow the drawings to be easier to read by individuals who have gone through the architectural school curricula, they make it more difficult for others, including users and clients, to read.  From the few architectural drawings that I have been exposed to it is not the organization of drawings on the page or heaviness of a line that makes it difficult to read.  Instead it is the lack of labeling and legends or keys.  For example, if one were to look at a graph the legend labels what each color corresponds to.  This is often understood by architects such that the legend is entirely left out.  If these elements were included it might make the drawing more understandable.

After publishing this entry a friend pointed out that I neglected to mention that just like architectural writing, audience is important to architectural drawing.  One must write or draw to one's audience.  If the audience is other architects than it's totally fine for drawings to lack labels, legends and such.  If, however, the audience is non-designers of some sort than labels may be more important.