“
One of the giant fallacies of current architectural practice is to treat [research] as proprietary. I see this as toxic to the profession and very short-sighted…A willingness to share results, lessons learned, not only advances the profession but shows prospective clients that you can be trusted to be candid. – Kirk Hamilton, FAIA
employees with experience in that building type. With buildings becoming more specific to client needs, the odds of a practitioner without the experience getting a specialized project are pretty slim. [KH] I don’t see a change in the use of numerous experts, and I don’t want to. Take the example of a structural engineer. No matter how much research is done on the part of the architect, I would never advocate replacing the qualified structural engineer. Yet that researchinformed capability will lead to more positive and collaborative decisions during the design process. Further, adopting evidence-based design to increase the credible outcomes associated with design will help to develop areas where architects can take back some responsibility.
The phrase “evidence-based design” implies quantification, a measured result. How do you respond to those practitioners that argue architecture is both science and art, that while some aspects of architecture may be measurable, others are immeasurable and an aggregate of the many qualities of a building? [DW] That is the allure of architecture. If it were only about form and aesthetics, then it would be no different than large-scale sculpture. This doesn’t mean that the three-dimensional qualities of a building are not important, but that in conjunction with the functional criteria of a working building these constitute the challenge of architecture. [KH] Architecture has always been both an art and a science, and delightfully so. The current practice of architecture is insufficiently rigorous in regard to the science. There is too much art.
5 / 6
2 0 1 0
How does one filter the relevant information from all of the data that can now be gathered? Wouldn’t even the sorting of priorities – such as, user comfort over efficiency – affect the final result? How does one find the “right mix” of information within all that data? [DW] This is best driven by the client and how the client defines success. Any project is a partnership with your client and finding the right mix of priorities is the challenge. I’ve never had a situation where there weren’t priorities in conflict with each other. Yet certain aspects cannot be compromised, the safety of users for example. It is helpful to use an empathetic approach. Seeing the project from the perspective of the client and end user helps to determine what information is most appropriate to focus on.
How does a small practitioner justify the resources and time for evidence-based design? Is it possible to adopt at a small scale, and is evidence-based design a replacement for experience and “gutfeelings”? [KH] No matter what the size is of the firm, you can’t make the mistake of tackling all the issues at once. We advocate beginning with the project on your desk at the moment. Start with the key issues for your current project and accumulate data over time. This is certainly possible at any scale. [DW] It is also important to keep up with the literature in your field and that of your clients. There is a time cost associated with these methods but that can be offset through partnerships among like-minded colleagues or with local universities. There are always a number of graduate students looking for research topics to explore.
”
Evidence-based design is currently most often identified with healthcare design. Is this a hindrance to the adoption of evidence-based design practices? [DW] It unfairly could be. Evidence-based design has found a home within healthcare design because the terminology and practices already exist in medicine. Yet, as we discuss in our book, it is just as relevant to any area of practice. [KH] We are not as concerned with the adoption of the language, whether the term “evidencebased design” is used, rather the adoption of the practice.
The numerical aspect of evidence-based design most closely translates to sustainable design practices and building science. Do you see this as the avenue through which these evidence-based design principals will gain traction in most firms? [KH] Sustainable design already most visibly and powerfully focuses on evidence-based design. The criteria of sustainability are often directly related to evidence. [DW] They both utilize quantifiable predictions. Unfortunately when it comes to more general design questions there is more data needed. Layers of observation are required to see how people behave in various environments.
Isn’t there an obvious tie-in between evidencebased design and BIM? Won’t this collection of data support the possibility of information-based design? [DW] Exactly. BIM (building information modeling) is about much more than merely clash detection. If we were to write an addendum to continued on page 75
t e x a s
a r c h i t e c t
35