Years ago, while working as a graphic designer, I presented a project logo to my client, an NGO. After a brief review, one of the board members said the logo reminded him of a gun. No one else, by any measure, could see what he was talking about, but everyone, while agreeing that it was a great logo, certainly didn’t want their project associated with guns.

I repeat, no one else could see how this logo (that everyone else loved) could ever be mistaken for a gun. Nevertheless, the clients curled up into conservatism, and disabused themselves of any associations with imaginary guns and the logo was changed, changed again and again. No one, not even me, remembers how it turned out. As to why the NGO’s project ultimately failed…

The New York Observer on the rise of unpaid labour:

The upshot is this: When interns work for nothing, as Frederick first pointed out, they lower the value of everyone else’s work. In publishing, for instance, it’s not uncommon for editorial assistants to earn less than $30,000 a year, for aspiring writers to blog for the mere satisfaction of seeing their bylines, and for more seasoned journalists to write long book reviews for a few hundred dollars

If you have enough talent to be an intern, you have enough talent to get paid.

Never work for free.

Also, see this.

Via Archinect.

"The world would be such a better place if the brightest people on the planet would stop making the things that the dumbest people on the planet wanted them to make".

Robert J. Sawyer, Humanity 2.0 lecture for TVO's Big Ideas. On location.

I have now spoken of lime and sand, with their varieties and points of excellence. Next comes the consideration of stone-quarries from which dimension stone and supplies of rubble to be used in building are taken and brought together. The stone in quarries is found to be of different and unlike qualities. In some it is soft: for example, in the environs of the city at the quarries of Grotta Rossa, Palla, Fidenae, and of the Alban hills; in others, it is medium, as at Tivoli, at Amiternum, or Mt. Soracte, and in quarries of this sort; in still others it is hard, as in lava quarries. There are also numerous other kinds: for instance, in Campania, red and black tufas; in Umbria, Picenum, and Venetia, white tufa.

In any case, stone, when used for columns or piers, must first be affixed to a hollow box made from composite board and then should be set firmly upon the bed of a wooden porch or deck. Further the wooden base should then itself be set, in it's turn, upon stone and mud pavements to allow the wood to fully participate in the humours of water. [emphasis added].

Vitruvius: The Ten Books on Architecture. Book II, Chapter VII. Vitruvius. Morris Hicky Morgan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. London: Humphrey Milford. Oxford University Press. 1914

Who am I to argue with 2000 years of tradition?

Blanning |blæniŋ| noun 1. the act of creating mediocre cities by hiding one's lack of courage and vision behind the standards and flags of process and stakeholder "engagement" (q.v.).

2. the opposite of Starchitecture (q.v.).

Stakeholder |ˈstākˌhōldər| noun

1. a person with an interest or concern in something.

2. in city planning, referring to the unemployed, dubiously employed or independently wealthy few who actually have the time to show up for a development hearing at 4:30 on a Tuesday afternoon while the rest of us bust our asses to raise a family and meet rent. As such they are, ironically, the least likely to be impacted by any development decisions actually made at said hearing.

3. literally anyone with the ability to show up somewhere and quote, verbatim, Margret Mead bumper stickers.

Engagement |enˈgājmənt| noun

1. the action of engaging or being engaged: How much longer is this goddamn charette? I have a date to watch Game of Thrones with the person I'm engaged to.

Starchitecture |stɑ:kitektʃər| noun

1. a word used by people who think celebrity architects have the power and influence to create anything they want anywhere they want. Usually used to defer culpability because, after all, you're the one who elected the assholes who actually made the decision to allow Daniel Libeskind to turn your community centre into some giant shitty broken glass cube, you dumbass.

2. the opposite of Blanning (q.v.).

CAC |kak| abbreviation Community Amenity Contributions.

1. descriptive of the choking sounds made by a neighbourhood being forced to swallow paltry concessions and token compromise in any large development process: "I guess–CAC–a Costco is like a farmer's market and–CAC–Starbucks is could be seen–CAC–as a community centre".

See also blanning.

Parti |ˌpärtē| noun

1. another term for the basic scheme or concept of an architectural design. Often, when spoken by a designer, used to signal the exact moment you should begin regretting that you hired said designer to redo your kitchen.

Shillboleth |ˈSHillbələTH| noun

1. a custom, principle, or belief distinguishing a particular class or group of people, especially a long-standing one regarded as outmoded or no longer important.

"In a recent discussion about housing, Justin called Danny a “shill”, an act clearly identifying him as a class or group of people not worth engaging with."

New Geography (I know) continued it's Recovery Blueprint series today with a piece by Rick Harrison entitled Homebuilding Recovery: How Cad Stifles Solutions.

As someone very interested in technology and design I was intrigued. After reading through the article the only intriguing question left unanswered is how did this article get posted?

Shall we?

Harrison begins well enough with some results from a technology survey from March 2012's  Engineering News-Record. People want "simpler, cheaper" software and dissatisfaction runs across the board. Fine. And then:

Until a few decades ago the development of the world was represented by a hand drawn plan. Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) did not exist. There was an intimacy between the design of buildings and the land development task at hand.

Really? Intimacy? Because of what? How? He doesn't say.

Since the introduction of CAD, the typical American city has seen few technology changes in the ways that housing is designed. There is virtually no advancement in the design of land development that can be associated with this new era of software-enabled design.

That's a pretty bold assessment. And a vague one. What does Harrison mean by the "ways that housing is designed"? The process? And if we are going to move beyond CAD and speak of "this new era of software-enabled design" one would have to work very hard not to notice the advancements we've made in the "design of land development": BIM, environmental modelling, rapid prototyping and parametric modelling, to name a few, have a sizeable and growing impact on our built environment. Further:

If anything, it could be argued that CAD technology resulted in worse design of the cities in which we dwell.

Maybe, but it's certainly starting to look like Harrison isn't up to the task.

During a recent lunch with a prominent architect, he explained to me how easy it is to do multifamily design. Simply create one interior unit and one end unit, and then repeat with minor modifications for the first floor units. There was no mention on how to increase the views, or of perceived space (versus actual space), or of efficiencies that could help make everyday living better for the residents. Only that CAD made things so much faster and ‘easier’ for the architect.

Surprise! CAD makes it easier to design shitty buildings by exactly the same factor as it makes it easier to design good buildings because CAD makes it easier to design things. (Not a surprise.)

Several software solutions companies boast in their literature about how the development of hundreds of lots can be generated in a minute. The attitude that technology is a tool for speed, instead of for quality, feeds complacency and dumbs down design to series of ‘typicals’ or ‘blocks’ that can be instantly duplicated.

Or not, it's really up to you.

The hand drafting tools used just a few decades ago simply do not exist today. In a saturated market, CAD companies must generate fees through updates, support and training. If these systems were easy (see above complaints) and quick to learn the support and training income would plummet. Thus, intentional complexity assures CAD an income stream for companies at the expense of limiting progress and stifling design advancements.

I would agree that large bloated companies like AutoDesk maybe limiting progress and stifling innovation in design software, but certainly not in design. And there is still plenty of room for disruption in this industry. SketchUp shook the AEC software industry to it's core while applications like Revit and ArchiCad make once cutting edge products like AutoCAD seem primitive. As to software's limiting influence on the design process? I see no evidence to support that in my practice or, for that matter, in this article:

Pre-packaged software results in pre-packaged solutions. For example, imagine that an engineer schooled in the use of a particular software is given the task of designing a storm sewer on a 100-acre subdivision. To design and create the required drawings and reports for the multi-million dollar storm sewer system using add-on software to CAD, it might take only a day or so. A more natural alternative using surface flow is likely a viable option, potentially reducing infrastructure expense by tens of thousands, and in some cases millions, of dollars. However, there is no ‘button press’ for surface flow. If consulting fees are based upon a percentage of construction costs the situation becomes worse.

Also, there is no ‘button press’ for 100-acre storm water systems either - you have to draw those. Also, if I were going to recommend a surface flow solution I would most certainly present the design using CAD. What's the point Harrison is trying to make here? We certainly won't find it in the next four vaguely related, possibly random sentences:

Many Architects intelligently use technology that is not possible through CAD. Some of these more intelligent software solutions have even been acquired by leading CAD companies. GIS (Geographic Information System) technology is generally based upon polygons, that is, a series of straight lines forming a shape. Typically, it’s useless for precision engineering and surveying irregular, real-world sites.

Got that? Good. Next on to collaboration:

Architects, engineers, surveyors and planners — the group of consultants that are given responsibility to design and produce plans for our world’s growth — have been, historically, un-collaborative.

Yup.

Technology has done little to change this and foster collaboration.

Except for growing software interoperability, BIM and, you know, email. I will agree we can do better in here, but I also think that these technologies are helping with collaboration not hurting.

Only a few decades ago, it was a given that hand drawn sketches would need to be calculated for construction. "Today, a planner using CAD could ‘sketch’ thousands of inaccurate lines and arcs that look like a finished plan, but would be useless for engineering and surveying."

Or he could do the same with crayons. What does this statement prove? Literally any media could be employed to create a useless plan that looks "finished".

Data transferred to the CAD system of an engineer or surveyor does not magically become accurate, and therefore usable. The way CAD has been utilized destroys collaboration instead of building it.

How? How does it destroy?

This isn’t the fault of CAD technology, which actually can create precise drawings.

Oh. Wait, what? But I thought…

The blame falls on those that teach its use. One way to build collaboration would be for schools in engineering, architecture, planning, and surveying to work on common projects, teaching the needs of each other in a way that reduces time and workload, allowing more time for better decision making.

So are we still talking about CAD here? I love the idea of common studio projects shared across professions, but you can be damn sure that if these projects are going to be relevant they'll be using some flavour of CAD.

Instead of being more efficient and reducing the physical elements required for development, we have added solutions that often increase installation and maintenance costs. An example is permeable paving, which is a wonderful idea: pavement that allows rainwater to pass into the ground, instead of running off the pavement’s end and flooding the surrounding area. The problem is not the pavement, but the fact that the under layer supporting the paving must also be permeable. To do this is often prohibitively expensive. If it’s not done properly, it traps water that can freeze (in colder climates) and then expand, and may not hold up to the weight of heavy loads.

Despite the promise of permeable pavement, design innovations that can reduce the volume of street surface by 30% or more without reducing functionality make more sense. Eliminating an excessive amount of street surface is an efficient solution that costs less to install and maintain than permeable pavement.Nope, not talking about CAD anymore. Oh wait, here we go:

There is no technology that can create a better design; we can only create better designers. Instead of educating CAD users on how to automate design, we need to create a generation of designers who use technology to create wonderful neighbourhoods instead of quick subdivision plans.

The consultant needs to concentrate on the best solution, not just the solution that is a mere button press away. Today, there is no excuse for creating designs that are not precise. Architects, engineers, planners, and surveyors need to learn to fulfill each other’s basic needs. This would go a long way towards creating a new era of collaborative design.So really, it's not CAD it's the poor choices people make? Shocking. Blaming the technology used to represent the design is ridiculous. Could we do more to create better designers? Go outside and look around, you tell me. Could we make better tools? Of course.

My grandfather was a draftsmen, he had a beautiful hand - he was a master of the craft. Would he ever think to blame the failure of the machines he drew on his pencils? No. He would sit down, get to work and draw a better machine.