- - The original note follows - -
Path: psuvm!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
olivea!hal.com!decwrl!usenet.coe.montana.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.uoregon.edu
!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU!jade.CS.ORST.EDU!crowl
From: crowl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Lawrence Crowl)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: The Failure of Modern Architects
Date: 9 Sep 1993 19:49:57 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Oregon State University
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <26o1d5INNiac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <26gi1aINN7nn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <54163@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: jade.cs.orst.edu
In article <54163@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
bowdidge@xxxxxxxxxxx (Robert Bowdidge) writes:
>Alexander, Christopher.
> A pattern language : towns, buildings, construction / Christopher
> Alexander, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, with Max Jacobson, Ingrid
> Fiksdahl-King, Shlomo Angel. New York : Oxford University Press, 1977.
>
>The book tends to be critical of modern architecture, both for choice of
>materials and building layout.
The authors' criticism is compelling. I am not an architect, I don't
even play one on TV, but I've used buildings all my life, and even
corrected some designs. Newer buildings (excluding perhaps single
family dwellings) are so universally bad that I have no choice but to
conclude that there hasn't been a competent architect at work since
about 1940.
Let me give you some examples. As an undergraduate, I had study access
to two buildings. One was built about 1900 and the other about 1960.
I could (and did) study in the first for eighteen to twenty-four hours
at a stretch and still feel comfortable. (Tired, but comfortable.)
After four hours in the second building, I would start to go nuts. I'd
just have to leave. As a graduate student, the department moved into a
new building. The building was designed so that the shortest path to
half the offices was through the lab, not following the halls. As a
result, the lab had a lot of distracting traffic. That building was
also carefully designed so that you could see the men's urinals in the
mirror when the men's restroom door was opened. The location of the
paper towels also forced an unnatural traffic flow in the restroom,
with people constantly having to dance around each other. (BTW, the
near mirror image women's restroom didn't have these problems.)
My analysis of the problem is that there are two kinds of architects.
The "construction" architects ask questions like "will this I-beam
handle the load?". The "art" architects ask questions like "is this
facade visually appealing?". However, there are no "usability"
architects. No one is asking "is this building usable?", "how will
people move through the building?", "where will they gather for
chats?", etc. Since no one is asking the latter questions, they never
get considered in the design. Since the construction architects are so
good they can deal with most anything, its the art architects that
drive most new designs. Those art designs are unusable.
I'd really like to hear that new architects are being trained in
usability, but since all the architecture awards go for art, I have
little hope that will happen. Show me I'm wrong, please.
--
Lawrence Crowl 503-737-2554 Computer Science Department
crowl@xxxxxxxxxxx Oregon State University
...!hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!crowl Corvallis, Oregon, 97331-3202
Path: psuvm!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
olivea!hal.com!decwrl!usenet.coe.montana.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!news.uoregon.edu
!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU!jade.CS.ORST.EDU!crowl
From: crowl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Lawrence Crowl)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: The Failure of Modern Architects
Date: 9 Sep 1993 19:49:57 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Oregon State University
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <26o1d5INNiac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <26gi1aINN7nn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <54163@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: jade.cs.orst.edu
In article <54163@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
bowdidge@xxxxxxxxxxx (Robert Bowdidge) writes:
>Alexander, Christopher.
> A pattern language : towns, buildings, construction / Christopher
> Alexander, Sara Ishikawa, Murray Silverstein, with Max Jacobson, Ingrid
> Fiksdahl-King, Shlomo Angel. New York : Oxford University Press, 1977.
>
>The book tends to be critical of modern architecture, both for choice of
>materials and building layout.
The authors' criticism is compelling. I am not an architect, I don't
even play one on TV, but I've used buildings all my life, and even
corrected some designs. Newer buildings (excluding perhaps single
family dwellings) are so universally bad that I have no choice but to
conclude that there hasn't been a competent architect at work since
about 1940.
Let me give you some examples. As an undergraduate, I had study access
to two buildings. One was built about 1900 and the other about 1960.
I could (and did) study in the first for eighteen to twenty-four hours
at a stretch and still feel comfortable. (Tired, but comfortable.)
After four hours in the second building, I would start to go nuts. I'd
just have to leave. As a graduate student, the department moved into a
new building. The building was designed so that the shortest path to
half the offices was through the lab, not following the halls. As a
result, the lab had a lot of distracting traffic. That building was
also carefully designed so that you could see the men's urinals in the
mirror when the men's restroom door was opened. The location of the
paper towels also forced an unnatural traffic flow in the restroom,
with people constantly having to dance around each other. (BTW, the
near mirror image women's restroom didn't have these problems.)
My analysis of the problem is that there are two kinds of architects.
The "construction" architects ask questions like "will this I-beam
handle the load?". The "art" architects ask questions like "is this
facade visually appealing?". However, there are no "usability"
architects. No one is asking "is this building usable?", "how will
people move through the building?", "where will they gather for
chats?", etc. Since no one is asking the latter questions, they never
get considered in the design. Since the construction architects are so
good they can deal with most anything, its the art architects that
drive most new designs. Those art designs are unusable.
I'd really like to hear that new architects are being trained in
usability, but since all the architecture awards go for art, I have
little hope that will happen. Show me I'm wrong, please.
--
Lawrence Crowl 503-737-2554 Computer Science Department
crowl@xxxxxxxxxxx Oregon State University
...!hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!crowl Corvallis, Oregon, 97331-3202