Archive for category: Tools

Specialization + Curriculum

Specialization + Curriculum

James Forren is an M.Arch thesis student at MIT

The first thing I thought of when I read “specialization” was a story I read in The New Yorker about the collapse of the Twin Towers. According to this article, a gentleman whose business it is to take down oversized structures (apartment towers, mammoth bridges, etc.) took one look at the planes plowing into the World Trade Center Towers and thought, instantly, “In 2 hours those buildings are coming down.” He frantically tried to phone people in charge, but couldn’t get through. When he saw fireman being sent up into the towers he could not believe his eyes. Leslie Roberts, the structural engineer for the towers, had no instinct for this. Putting buildings up and taking them down are specialized fields with separate knowledge.

A first response to this, or at least my first response, was that this is a sad, disturbing state of affairs. This is because I assumed (correctly or not) that these two bits of knowledge were once part of a synthetic discipline. I read both Mario Salvadori’s books Why Building Stand Up and Why Buildings Fall Down. I assumed that the responsibility of knowing why they stand up must, out of good, professional ethics, always be coupled with the knowledge of why they fall down. This is, in part, naïve. We know that erectors of Gothic Cathedrals had no clear sense of the threshold of their abilities. Perhaps, the early, cautious efforts were more cognizant of these limits. With success, perhaps, came distance from the specter of failure.
What I’m getting at is that I, with many others, have a longing for a synthetic knowledge that perhaps never really existed. But, I think, this is an ideal we can share and try to examine critically. When I think of the Twin Towers’ collapse, I wonder how can these threads of knowledge be woven back together. I don’t know. I have fantasies of CAD models on the web that all consultants can weigh in on and examine. I harbor fantasies of Uber-Architects whose knowledge and skills encompass everything an architect “should know.” Of expanded curricula that create a more synthetic blend of disciplinary knowledge. Again, on the larger, social and professional spectrum, I have no clue. I retell the Twin Towers story so often I hope that someone or someones may figure this out.

QUESTION
For the time being, I am finishing my time here at MIT. On the note of specialization and architecture, I have never, in my life, seen the discipline of architecture so forcefully and thoughtlessly rent to pieces as I have here. Nor, however, have I ever seen the discipline draw upon such deep resources from these many fragments of its personality with such ambition and elegance. HTC, BT, Computation, Visual Arts, Urban Planning, The Media Lab and Design. I may be missing a program or two. Efforts are made, different programs are invited to review and sit on thesis committees. But it is the students who are largely responsible for the effort of threading competing practices into a single synthetic or fractured vision. However, neither we nor the department are cognizant of that fact. The Department Welcome Page correctly heralds the variation and depth of our resources. The notion of richness and variety under a single Department implies a systemic connection among these parts. This is, however, misleading and, ultimately, disillusioning implication for many students and faculty arriving in the Department for the first time.

A strong indicator that this is not true lurks in the other heralded aspect of education here: the individualized pursuit of knowledge. It is fully expected that students will navigate these waters on their own. And, well, they may be expected to. But the effort this entails and the obstructions it engenders severely limits the success that can be expected of even the most ambitious students during their time here. This is not to say that the environment is not an excellent one; nor that it is unique in this lapse in meeting student needs. It does mean, however, that we are not as strong an institution as we have the potential to be.

I am not advocating specifically for an integrated curriculum, nor inter-disciplinary education. I don’t know enough about either to outright support them nor their alternatives. I am advocating that, amidst an environment of deep specialization, should the promise of synthesis be realized, measures must be in place that support this vision. It will not occur, as the laissez-faire pedagogy-without-a-pedagogy position of the administration seems to assume, organically on its own by the daily “balancing acts” of the students and faculty.

What are these measures? Steps are in place introducing curriculum integration at the Level I and SMarches years. This should help. I might naively propose a concerted attention to the required courses of the M.Arch curriculum beyond Level I. Our semester typically involves a tug-of-war between unusually demanding BT, HTC, Computation/Fabrication, Media Lab or Visual Arts courses. Working knowledge is not emphasized in these courses so much as disciplinary expertise modeled on the education of these instructors who specialize in these disciplines. This situation commonly undermines the laboratory of Studio where these concepts are, I assume, intended to by synthesized.

But this is a position marked by ambivalence on my part. I’m glad that I can take Building Science courses taught by engineers. Taking history and theory courses in a program where the discipline’s contemporary practice was practically invented is, likewise, an unprecedented opportunity. But, I am not alone in my disappointment a the collapse of design efforts at semester’s close. Nor in my sadness at the use of the M.Arch program by advancing undergrads as a place to study because they feel they’ve had enough studio prior to MIT and want to focus on other coursework. My suggestion is that, rather than anxiously resisting the notion of “some stratagem or directive” as a “once and for all” solution, the administration considers the situation at hand, develop concrete steps to address it and a framework to monitor the progress of these initiatives. Repeated knee-jerk defenses of a situation that many experience as untenable is simply short-sighted at best, and debilitating at its worst.

Specialization in Architectural Practice and Education

Specialization in Architectural Practice and Education

Stanford Anderson is a Professor of History and Architecture and the Head of the department of Architecture at MIT.

Practice

Unquestionably, architectural practice today requires more specialized knowledge and performance than in the past. These demands increase with the scale of projects and the range of challenging issues that are addressed. To choose to address sustainability issues, for example, requires more expertise than if those concerns are ignored. Does the general phenomenon of specialization, then, represent a trend, or perhaps even a rather rapid movement away from the architect generalist toward associations of technician/specialists that might not even include architects as we have know them?

The evidence does not all point in this direction. From individual practioners to some very large firms, it is not difficult to think of architects who still build coherent bodies of work. IN some of these cases, their generalist role may be driven by purely formal concerns; we may feel inclined to criticize them for not being sufficiently attentive to the complexity of the problem, and thus to the need for specialized knowledge. But there are examples of the generalist architect who does also succeed in addressing a remarkable range of specialist issues. One thinks of the almost lone figure of Glenn Murcutt, to the small offices of a Rick Joy or Brian McKay-Lyons, the research based office of Thomas Herzon, and on through the mid-sized offices of Renzo Piano or Michael Hopkins or Nicholas Grimshaw to the large office of Norman Foster. At these very different scales of operation, all of these architects reveal a capacity to embrace many issues and address them both through their own broad knowledge and by thoughtful collaboration.
I say “thoughtful collaboration” because in their choices of engineers, for example, neither do they pass off the technical work as the responsibility of someone else nor do they resist the creative input of the engineer. The engineers with whom they work have something of the “generalist sensibility” that allows for genuinely collaborative development.

I argue then, that neither the large office nor the large project precludes the possibility of highly creative work by generalist architects.
Piano and Foster (and several lesser known but creditable architects) have built major airports without being, or becoming, “airport architects.” The small firm of one of our own graduates, Ben Wood (Wood and Zapata), built the major stadium for the Chicago Bears without being specialists as “sport architects.”

The necessity of more and deeper knowledge, and the scale of projects, does not preclude good architecture or its realization by generalists architects.
But there is a form of specialization that is troubling, and that is the type already suggested in the last paragraph. Must you have done several (probably unimaginative) airports, or stadiums, or hospitals before receiving a chance to do one? I served two terms on the Design Advisory Board of Massport, at a time when they were choosing architects for new terminals at Logan Airport. As a bureaucracy, they were protected by selecting architects already known, in this case, as “airport architects.” Even if the firm had done only mediocre work, they still were known for this type of work; you had not gone out on a limb with an architect new to the type. It did not have to be at the scale of a terminal; reworking the ticket counters in an existing terminal required prior experience of that kind!

My first exposure to the current debate about this type of worrisome specialization was this “health care architecture.” More than a year ago, Tom Payette came to the Board of Directors of the Boston Society of Architects (the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects) to explain and urge resistance to the development of special credentials for architects who would design health care facilities. Payette’s own firm has a significant position in this field, but he was resisting a cause advanced by his fellow/competing hospital architects. Tom is rightly concerned that developing and requiring special credentials for each building type is destructive of imaginative development of the field, negative in its inherent resistance to the entry of new generations of architects in the field, and contrary to the valued generalist nature of architectural practice. I cannot speak for the Boston Society of Architects, but the Board gave a very positive reception to Tom’s concerns, and no one defended certification formalities for such forms of specialization.

That, then is a form of specialization to be criticized and resisted.
I have already acknowledged the necessity to work openly and creatively in collaborations that require multiple forms of specialization. I would go further to say that “generalist architects” may find it advantageous to themselves to achieve some specialist stature. To take my sustainability issue again: We are at a juncture where it takes considerable effort to know the current state of the science and engineering of sustainability, let alone to make some contribution to those fields. If an architect wishes to take special responsibility in this area (or others), he or she will be brought to a level of specialization – but that architect could still practice over the full range of building scales; in urban, rural, or wilderness environments; and with all building types. He or she can, and hopefully would, still have a particular signature within the broader cultural enterprise of architecture.

Education

Are the research degrees in schools of architecture and the pressure for research by professors of architecture either the cause or the result of specialization in the practice of architecture? Certainly there are reciprocities between the increasing emphasis on research in both architectural practice and education, but I would emphasize two matters in this respect.
The first professional degree should properly be slow in bringing students into a research mode. Students come to architecture, even to graduate studies in architecture, as neophytes. You cannot define a research program in a discipline until you know the current state of that field – and there is plenty for the new student to learn while becoming a contributor to the generalist field of architecture. As here at MIT, architecture students, in their brief 3+ years, may participate in a professor’s research project, may take on a sub-inquiry in a workshop, may be exposed to the research of professors and advanced degree students. They will thus be exposed to research and more generally develop the capacities that may lead to a research contribution in a M.Arch thesis, in continuing graduate education, or eventually in practice. But the M.Arch. in itself is not a research degree.

Secondly, the research degrees should allow a student committed to the role of architect to adopt a special emphasis in generalist practice (as adduced with sustainability concerns above), or, alternatively, allow a student to become a specialist who, whether in practice or sustained research, can work creatively in the realization of superior architecture that does recognize the increased complexity of the built environment and its realization.

Portfolio Design and Development

 

Here you will find a blog with articles related to putting together an effective portfolio, information on approaches, techniques, what to include, what not, and others. We also prepared a set of tools to help you in your pursuit. These include workshops, editing services, online tools, etc. Check it out and send us your feedback.

>>>>>> go to PORTFOLIO BLOG & TOOLBOX to find out more >>>>>

 

 

The following are some samples of work of people who have used the tools: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BARELY LEGAL: HOME EDITION

by Rick Hauser

Rick received his Master of Architecture from the University of Virginia in 1995, and worked for several architectural offices in Charlottesville, VA, before locating in western NY near his wife’s dairy farm. There he worked independently and as project architect with a Rochester, NY office prior to starting I.S:A in early 2001. He has taught at Hobart and William Smith Colleges and is the founder and manager of Perry New York LLC. 

For more information about Rick Hauser and InSite:Architecture please visit: insitearch.com 

For more articles from Rick Hauser’s click here to visit his syndicated column ‘Architecture Matters’



<div xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" about="http://www.flickr.com/photos/davipt/164341428/"><a rel="cc:attributionURL" href=

A handy, if unauthorized, subtitle for the New York State Building Code might be “The Absolute Least You Can Do Without Breaking The Law”.

This is not exactly inspiring. When it comes to energy use, “meeting code” means that you are building the biggest energy hog that you are permitted to construct. The Hummer of Houses, so to speak, a barely legal residence that contributes the most greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions allowable.

I have no objection to the NYS law. It sets minimum standards. Regarding energy use, it tries to contain gross negligence which would exacerbate environmental problems or tax our energy generation capacity. But their tool – the code – is a blunt instrument in this regard – a cartoonishly small, ineffective mallet against a War of the Worlds-scale enemy. (FYI, the enemy in this caricature is the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change; the cause is the increase in CO2 concentrations that has triggered global average increases in temperature).

Code compliance doesn’t usually result in the best return-on-investment (ie lifecycle) decisions regarding energy-efficient design and technology, nor should it. It’s not yet up to Big Brother to legislate best practices or compel us to be financially savvy.

At the other end of the spectrum from ‘barely legal,’ is the holy grail of greenhouse-gas emissions – zero. A Zero Net Energy (ZNE) building is one that – over the course of a year – consumes no more energy than it can produce. ZNE buildings – mostly homes – exist now. Superinsulation, energy-sipping appliances, a smart grid, consumer energy awareness, and perhaps $30,000 for wind turbines or solar arrays, will do the trick.

More broadly achievable might be if we set that as a 20-year goal, with intermediate benchmarks and a measurable way to chart our progress. Actually, Architecture 2030 has issued that exact challenge. They note that buildings contribute a whopping 76% of all coal-based GHG emissions and they submit that 2030 is an achievable nationwide goal for phasing them out.  For homes completed in 2009, their target for fossil fuel-based energy use was a 50% reduction over the published regional average, stepping up the reduction every 5 years until “carbon-neutral” new construction is achieved in 2030.

Can that goal be readily achieved right here in the Finger Lakes, right now? One year’s actual energy data at two 2009-built area homes designed by my firm indicates the answer is yes. Do we collectively have the willpower and the foresight to make this a priority? Time will tell.

Put Your Money On Downtown

Rick received his Master of Architecture from the University of Virginia in 1995, and worked for several architectural offices in Charlottesville, VA, before locating in western NY near his wife’s dairy farm. There he worked independently and as project architect with a Rochester, NY office prior to starting I.S:A in early 2001. He has taught at Hobart and William Smith Colleges and is the founder and manager of Perry New York LLC. 

For more information about Rick Hauser and InSite:Architecture please visit: insitearch.com 

For more articles from Rick Hauser’s click here to visit his syndicated column ‘Architecture Matters’

Downtowns are back. In cities large and small, in villages small and smaller, communities are rediscovering their Main Streets. Why? Because that’s where the vitality is. Developers are buying buildings to rehab for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks: Because that’s where the money is. Government is putting the money there – in the form of grants, low-interest loans, income tax credits and property tax abatements. Why? Because that’s where the infrastructure is.

 

An interior of a totally rehab’d apartment in downtown Perry. This 7500 sf building leveraged all of the programs described – grants, historic tax credits, sale-leaseback. The apartments rent for 75% more than before and were leased before construction was complete.

Our region is no exception to this trend. In Mount Morris a visionary developer has purchased 20 buildings; in 2010 he and other galvanized owners were busy delaminating vinyl and T1-11 siding from facades, replacing windows and rehabilitating interiors, while they continue to recruit tenants in a coordinated strategy to create a viable mix of businesses. Down the road in Perry, a community-wide investment group is completing renovation of its second anchor building, having raised $600,000 in private capital as one part of a broader reinvestment that has transformed 40,000 sf of vacant Main Street real estate in 5 years.

Meanwhile, Corning’s Market Street has long been an exemplary model of a community-minded corporate sponsor taking an interest in the 1972 flood-devastated downtown as a long-term recruitment and retention strategy. Finally, Geneva has aggressively pursued grant opportunities on behalf of its building owners which, in coordination with the Geneva BID and enterprising building owners, is resulting in some highly visible successes throughout downtown.

Now, here’s the lesson in it all. In each case, private for-profit owners leverage public resources as a component of viable business plans.  They put their money where their house is, and they take the long view. Through that lens, there are three public resource-leveraging strategies that each community’s leaders should be pursuing as ingredients toward successful downtown rehab. I’ll call them Compete, Comply and Postpone.

COMPETE

Get a grant. Those communities that have been advocating for their downtowns, completing projects with local money, and forming downtown citizen advocacy groups are positioned best for the current gold standard of downtown grants: the annual New York Main Street Program. Now matching up to $500,000 per community, it leverages far more than that in private dollars. Mount Morris, Dansville, Lima, Arcade, and Perry are some of the area’s the more recent recipients.

COMPLY

Get your downtown on the National Register. Many downtowns have within them potential districts with architectural and historical merit. Renovate a contributing building to a designated district in a sympathetic manner and you can get 40 cents of every dollar spent on rehab back, when federal and state credits are combined. Any individual or entity can nominate a district, but sit-downs with owners in advance of any such undertaking is crucial, in part to dispel the erroneous notion that such a designation will impinge on their freedom. The truth is, owners in a district who want to paint their buildings pink, tar and feather them or knock them down – even all three, sequentially – could still do so if they were allowed before.  But, those owners who wanted to take advantage of very significant tax credits on passive income would have that option. For renovations over $200,000, these credits can easily exceed the extra costs of complying with rehabilitation standards. I know this because I’ve prepared historic district applications and tax credit applications. It works.

POSTPONE

Lock your assessment at the pre-renovation value. Working with an IDA, some communities can offer a “sale-leaseback agreement” that extends the lower assessed value for five years and phases it in over five more (it also cancels out sales tax on your construction materials). Talk about a win-win! Tax jurisdictions benefit – in the long term – because this incentive will ultimately increase their tax revenues. Meanwhile, delaying that increase can save you $100,000 in taxes if the pre-renovation and post-renovation values were just $200,000 apart. There are simpler abatement programs too; some are as easy as filling out a one-page application available at your assessor’s office. Want more information? Search the web for NYS Real Property Law 485(a) and 485(b).

 

***

Committed owners will no doubt work towards all three of these strategies, while aggressively seeking tenants and low-interest loans, cash-back energy incentives and green design programs. They will advocate collectively to the proper municipal entities or downtown associations to pursue the grant, establish the district, and opt-in to existing programs.

It makes solid, long-term sense to invest downtown. Why? Because that’s where the future is.

 

Think Local Act Global

By Rick Hauser

Rick received his Master of Architecture from the University of Virginia in 1995, and worked for several architectural offices in Charlottesville, VA, before locating in western NY near his wife’s dairy farm. There he worked independently and as project architect with a Rochester, NY office prior to starting I.S:A in early 2001. He has taught at Hobart and William Smith Colleges and is the founder and manager of Perry New York LLC. 

For more information about Rick Hauser and InSite:Architecture please visit: insitearch.com 

For more articles from Rick Hauser’s click here to visit his syndicated column ‘Architecture Matters’

“Think Global, Act Local” goes the saying.  And it’s usually true that we most effectively impact positive change at the local level.

But can local thinking yield global action? Sometimes the opportunity arises where one can act globally, or, more accurately, act across the globe to impact another locale. Such is the case with work with which I’ve been involved in the rainforests of Madagascar.  Our Finger Lakes/Western New York region has a stronger connection to the conservation work underway in this biodiversity hotspot than you might think, and a recent improvement in a Malagasy village has been made possible by the efforts, passions, donations, and labors of many players based here.

The story begins for me in 2006 when a world-renowned primatologist affiliated with Stony Brook University, but with roots and connections upstate, hired my firm to work in the land of lemurs, Madagascar where she’s been active for decades.  We designed- and five years later are building- Conservation Hall, an environmentally-attuned, locally-sourced, four-story, Research-and-Outreach Center at the edge of a national park.

The scaffolding, formwork, and excess brick and granite from this building – Conservation Hall at CVB – were all donated and we designed the new building around the available materials

That’s a surprising enough link between a small upstate architect and an African island nation. But while working on that project, we recently completed a second project a few miles down the road – the Maison des Beaux Arts de Ranomafana. While the Centre ValBio (CVB) where our main project is based, has become a major employment base for nearby residents, the Maison des Beaux Arts now serves as a marketplace in the nearest village where craftspeople and artisans create and sell their products.

The mayor of Ranomafana, Razanakoto Léon, is a forward-thinking citizen. A few years ago, CVB announced plans to add Conservation Hall to their rainforest outpost. The mayor approached us, as well as CVB’s director and the aforementioned primatologist Dr. Patricia Wright, with a novel proposal: he would waive the permit fees for the construction, in exchange for the design and construction of a new marketplace in the village. His project would improve commerce in his village, and leverage the skills and international attention focused at the Centre ValBio.

In order to keep the cost of this undertaking down, our design challenge as architects was to use as much “waste” material from the main construction site as possible in constructing the marketplace.  After inventorying available supplies, we designed the structure to use two types of leftover bricks from Conservation Hall – one became the water table, and the other filled out the upper walls. Excess granite became the concrete slab base.

The new marketplace under construction- using recycled wood from Conservation Hall at CVB for the roof structure

But the best part was the roof. The roof structure  – a series of pyramidal modules separated by gutters – was made completely from the four stories of scaffolding that had been used to support the formwork for the concrete floor levels of the other building! The load-bearing capacity of the scaffolding helped determine the size of each module. Meanwhile, the leftover formwork itself (the wood planks that hold the concrete in place until it sets) became the marketplace’s roof sheathing.

Maison des Beaux Arts de Ranomafana – first picture of the finished building.

Here’s where the local connections come in: We agreed to donate our design and construction administration services. Additionally, CVB donated building site materials. As if the connection between our regions was not enough, to fund the remaining materials the project received donations from one of our Western New York clients (who became interested in the project after we introduced it to them) and also benefited from the fundraising efforts of Seneca Park Zoo docents in Rochester who now annually hold a “Party Madagascar” to celebrate the cause. The ‘Lemur Lager’ they sell there is brewed at Honeoye Falls’ Custom Brewcrafters, another local partner.

So clearly it is not hard to Drink Locally and Act Globally.

But if you want to go even further to help strengthen the bond between our region and one of the world’s most bio-diverse and threatened locations, that’s not hard either: Go to www.ictetropics.organd click the Donate button.

DESIGN TIPS FROM FARMERS

By Rick Hauser

Rick received his Master of Architecture from the University of Virginia in 1995, and worked for several architectural offices in Charlottesville, VA, before locating in western NY near his wife’s dairy farm. There he worked independently and as project architect with a Rochester, NY office prior to starting I.S:A in early 2001. He has taught at Hobart and William Smith Colleges and is the founder and manager of Perry New York LLC. 

For more information about Rick Hauser and InSite:Architecture please visit: insitearch.com 

For more articles from Rick Hauser’s click here to visit his syndicated column ‘Architecture Matters’

 

I am married to a dairy farmer. So I may be more intimately familiar with the needs of cows than your average architect. But I’m not alone in my admiration of agricultural structures. Like many, I draw inspiration from the form, scale, rhythm and rootedness of farm architecture. Why is that? And, what might we learn about architecture from studying the farm?

SITING.
Let’s start with the obvious: Farms are located in beautiful places. The agricultural landscape is an ordered tapestry in whose contours you can read the accumulated, patient efforts and investments of past generations. In its fabric you can detect the patterned logic of efficient planting, the incremental ingenuity of those attuned to local conditions soils, weather and runoff patterns. This is a working landscape that changes not just with the seasons but by the week. Within this spectacular setting, the buildings are positioned and oriented, scaled and contained. Each structure on a farm belongs to that place. It gives measure to the fields. In both a practical and a symbolic sense, the structures are in balance with the fields that nourish them. As a result, these buildings simply “fit” the place.

SCALE AND RHYTHM.
A house can be pretty, but a barn is sublime. The height and breadth and length of a modern free stall barn can feel like a cathedral from the inside – seemingly endless rows of trusses, each composed of the smallest lumber units available, but collectively enclosing a thousand linear feet in a rhythmic march to a distant vanishing point. As you walk down the central aisle, daylight filters in via a tall ridge vent while the black and white inhabitants ruminate and watch you silently. It is a serene and unintentionally spiritual moment (though you may not want to kneel). From a distance these long, low, repetitive structures are very comfortable in the broad, horizontal, rhythmically planted fields they inhabit.

EXPRESSION.
Things are not covered up on a farm. The gleaming corrugated metal grain silos are not painted; each rib creates a shadow line below, and glints in the morning sun. Some upper wall panels are translucent polycarbonate to let in more light; at night they slice through the darkness, emanating long ribbons of warm yellow light, like beacons for passersby. The skeleton of the barns are exposed, sometimes with a skin of operable canvas curtains that frames the landscape. Corn cribs of wood or wire express their porous purpose of drying their contents. Bunk silos of gray concrete contain vast volumes of hayleage and corn, their mute walls telegraphing only the pattern of the steel or wood forms that were used to make them. The inherent honesty in expressing materials and the effect of revealing rather than concealing structural members makes a farm a great laboratory for an architect!

ECONOMY.
It almost goes without saying: Agricultural buildings are astylistic, unpretentious structures whose owners value incremental innovation over adornment. They need to perform their intended function perfectly and at the least possible cost. It is this ethic of Economy which is embodied in the “architecture” of the farm. But there is also an ethic of quality. Farms are capital-intensive, multi-generational endeavors; farmers (and their bankers) do not take their investments lightly. So things tend to be built to endure, with an eye to the future. This broader application of Economy is in the DNA of farm structures past and present. To me, there is much to learn about the beauty inherent in that spirit as well as in the forms that result from it.

***

With all this background, you can imagine how thrilled I was to have our first agricultural commission. Farmers don’t usually consult architects, but my wife didn’t have a choice. The problem was that some of the cows on the west side of the freestall barn were baking in the afternoon sun. The conundrum here was how to omit hostile, low-angled western rays while admitting important cooling breezes. With Economy, Scale, Rhythm, and Expression firmly in mind, we developed a proposal: Lightweight 8’ tall “banners” spaced out along the western side, precisely angled based on the afternoon sun’s position, and hung on removable frames. These “solar fins” can be detached when winds become hostile and the sun is welcome once more. The farmer seems to like this; as for the cows, they’re still chewing it over.

TOOLBOXES

Toolboxes are different blogs with tools, services, links, ideas, and articles focusing on a particular practical subject for designers, like i.e. creating a design portfolio for admission to schools of design and architecture, or positioning oneself in order to get the right position or internship, or developing a design-related venture.

TOOLS & SUPPORT

ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN SCHOOL

JOB-SEARCH

CAREER PLANNING

PORTFOLIO DEVELOPMENT

Marketing + Strategy in Design Professions

>>> GO TO THE “MARKETING AND STRATEGY IN DESIGN BLOG” >>>

At this Blog you will get the chance to read articles and interviews relating to marketing, strategy and positioning as they relate to the different professions of design.

>>> GO TO THE “MARKETING AND STRATEGY IN DESIGN BLOG” >>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Network for Design Venturers

>>> Click here to get to the network [www.designventurer.com/network]

The Design Venturer Network, is something between a social network and a classifieds list. As a member of the network you will be able to post some basic information about you and your ventures, and ask for assistance or collaboration. The Design Venturer network is not a place for self-promotion, so there is no place for posting pictures etc [it is not a portfolio space]. It is meant to be an agregator of cool straight-forward concepts, and awesome straight-forward collaborations. So, sign up, browse the profiles of the other participants, and see if there are any projects that you would be interested in being a part of. OR … simply post a description of your own project, and ask for collaborators to join you… Good luck and let me know if it works.

>>> Click here to get to the network [www.designventurer.com/network]

 

😀

Elos – editor