The Model of Place and the Invisible Hand

Gerald Weisman’s essay “The Program” endeavors to build upon the reawakening of interest in the “people side” of architecture.  Weisman asks “What is the place of people in architecture?  At one level we recognize that people – as clients, colleagues, consultants, critics, and most especially consumers – are central to what we do, but exactly where and how do they fit within the architectural design process?”

According to Weisman, there is a model of place.  In an effort to help convey this idea, I’ve included the sketch I created during class that should help.  As I drew it, I was able to better comprehend each component and how they worked together as a whole.  In the sketch we see that groups, organizations, and individuals overall make up the PEOPLE component.  PEOPLE are linked to  PHYSICAL SETTING (or building) by way of the PROGRAM.  The PROGRAM component contains the experiential program, functional program, and architectural/design program.

• Experiential Program is what we are experiencing, hence it’s inclusion in the PEOPLE component.
• Functional Program are the intentions, desires, and what we want or need to do
• Architectural/Design Program is concerned with rooms, functions, and spatial allocations, hence it’s location with PHYSICAL SETTING component.

The hidden program is the communal understanding of places – who’s going to be there, what the expected actions/behaviors are, and the physical setting.  Depending on where we are from, however, this hidden program will vary.  Weisman states that this hidden program plays a significant role in shaping group and individual action.  To the extent we share society’s definition of “gourmet restaurant,” “corner bar,” and “fast food joint,” we know what to expect, and even what to order in each, and are able to behave in a manner deemed socially appropriate.

“We must recognize that the invisible hand of the hidden program plays a role in shaping every place we design.” – Gerald Weisman (with due credit to economist Adam Smith)

Expanding our vision from buildings to places makes people an integral component of our professional focus rather than an ancillary matter.  Shifting our attention from the behaviors in which people engage to their environmental experiences – current and desired – allows us to build a bridge from functional to architectural program and from architectural program to design.

Sources:

Weisman, G. (2001). The Place of People in Architectural Design.  In A. Pressman (Ed.), The Architect’s Portable Design Handbook: A guide to best practice. New York: McGrawhill. 158-170.

[Image: Sketch drawn by me, Kristin W.]

Filed under: Theory, interior design, Place

Affordances

Affordances can be defined as a quality of an object, or an environment, that allows an individual to perform an action that wasn’t in the initial design.  For example, stairs can be used for more than ascending or descending.  In fact, they can be used for seating if need be.  Countless times  I have stopped on a flight of stairs to put my shoes on… Or when I am outside, I often sit on stairs to enjoy my lunch or read a book.  It’s important to note that not all affordances are perceived by people and not all perceived affordances are used.

[Image: stock.xchng]

Filed under: Environment, Theory, affordances, interior design

The Hidden Program

The reading selection from “Restructuring the Hidden Program: Toward an Architecture of Social Change” by Murray Silverstein and Max Jacobson was an eye-opening read for me.  The ideas presented about the architectural program were new to me.  I thought I would share some of the more interesting points (for me) with you here:

• What is an architectural program? On the surface it is simply a list of spaces denoting specific rooms and outdoor spaces, with a gross size for each, sometimes a few key relationships between them, and an overall budget for the project.  Fundamentally, an architectural program, even a very simple one, is a social-physical form.  It’s like a rough skeleton – a million things stand between developing a program and finally bringing the buildings to life.

• According to Silverstein and Jacobson, the argument has been that if programs are so fundamental to the nature of buildings, then they should be developed carefully from the outset by teams that include architects and even specially trained programmers.  And what is more, since architecture nowadays is notoriously alienating to its users, it is just at this point, in the formulation of the program, that user needs should be recognized and made part of the program.

What I found particularly interesting is their observation that people are not simply disaffected with architecture as such; but that they are disaffected with the way of life that is sustained by Modern architecture.

• As professionals trying to grasp this situation, we find ourselves of two minds.  In part we believe that it all makes sense: if we set about to design a shopping center or office building or house project, a good job of programming is important.  And if this work includes the opportunity to study the users, their habits, and their needs, so much the better.  But at the same time, no matter how sophisticated the program, we often feel that the projects we work on do not make sense – that is, they are alienating, wrongly conceived, and/or socially reactionary.

• As professionals, we tend to avoid the analysis of hidden programs, in part because we feel we have no power to explore and act upon them.  It is not easy for an architect to go the roots of a building type, unravel the myths contained there, and still be employable.  It is far easier for a professional to accept hidden programs and go on to demonstrate his expertise with methods and styles that embellish and improve the form.

Silverstein and Jacobson state: “But in fact isn’t this the kind of work society should expect from professionals that seek to define themselves as environmentalists concerned with users?  In our journals we all agree that buildings play a powerful role in their social ecology of a culture; that their programs are drawn from the dominant values, myths, and laws.  But when we are faced with the disaffection of people at precisely this level, we tend to ignore our theories and quietly fall back upon the myth of buildings as purely physicaly objects and thereby obscure our  complicity with these deeper issues.”

From here the authors proceed to analyze the hidden program of a supermarket which is a truly interesting read, but I won’t discuss it in detail in this blog post.  For those who do not attend this class, I highly recommend checking it out.  If you’re interested, though, my classmate Heather talks about the supermarket here.

Sources:

Silverstein, M. and Jacobson M. (1978). Restructuring the hidden program: Toward an architecture of social change. In W. Preiser (Ed.), Facility Programming. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.

Weisman, G. (2001). The Place of People in Architectural Design.  In A. Pressman (Ed.), The Architect’s Portable Design Handbook: A guide to best practice. New York: McGrawhill. 158-170.

[Image: Nina Ex Interior Design Portfolio]

Filed under: Theory, Architecture, interior design, programming

Environment-Behavior Studies

As interior designers our goal is to clarify our understanding of the relationship between people and the built environment by reviewing existing ideas.  I personally believe that we are naturally more sensitive to the environment (either because we were born that way or trained to be this way) and we, overall, believe that the environment can have an impact on a user’s experience and behavior.

I feel that Lang explains this very well:

“One has to understand the nature of human motivations because they tell us something about the focus of a person’s attention at a particular time. Maslow’s model of a hierarchy of human motivations is a useful one, for we have self-consciously or unselfconsciously shaped the world to better meet our physiological needs, our needs for safety, belonging, esteem, and actualization, and finally our cognitive and aesthetic needs.”

“Our attitudes are related to our motivations. What we like and dislike, what we believe to be good or bad, important or unimportant-these attitudes are related to the various socialization processes and experiences we have had and thus to the influence of others. We, in turn, try to influence others. Our personalities and our social and cultural backgrounds are all indicators, not perfect predictors, of attitudes toward people and toward characteristics of the built environment. Similarly, what we perceive to be the rewards and costs of participating in a particular setting affect our attitudes to the setting -to the people in it, to their behavior, and to the milieu.Some settings are highly stressful, but the financial and psychological rewards for being there are high and so we accept the stress. Other settings are highly unpleasant and the rewards for being there are low and the costs high. If there is an alternative, people are likely to attempt to get out of the situation. Sometimes, for those trapped by poverty or authoritarianpolitical powers, there is no alternative. There are also situations where the rewards are high and the costs very low for being there. We cannot expect to always be in such situations.”

Different factors can influence a user’s desire to act in an environment in particular ways.  For example, let’s say that we are designing an “environmentally friendly” office.  Naturally, we would want to design a space that highlights the positive emotions associated with activities like recycling, riding your bike to work or using public transportation when trying to promote pro-environmental behavior.  On the other hand, we must realize that negative emotions (anticipating that a particular activity will not be pleasant) may hinder the likelihood of our desired behavior (using public transportation).

Source: Lang, Jon. The Built Environment and Human Behaviors. Creating Architectural Theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in design, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 100-108

[Image: The Causemopolitan]

Filed under: Environment, Theory, environment-behavior, interior design

Defining Theory, Criticism, and Environment

I’m nowhere near an expert on the theory of interior design. In fact, I find the entire subject rather daunting. As I understand it, interior design crosses the paths of many disciplines; psychology, environmental design, economics, and gender studies (to name a few off the top of my head.) Since these varied disciplines are related to interior design, it makes sense that they have an affect on it’s theory as well. Admittedly, this is where I start to have problems understanding everything. If only interior design had it’s own defined theory – perfectly wrapped in a box and easily understood by every person who opened it! That would be helpful, don’t you think?

If I had such a box, it’d certainly help me define the terms Theory, Criticism, and Environment, but since I have no such box… I am going to try to define these terms with the understanding I currently have of them. I trust that my understanding will evolve as I progress through this class and I look forward to an increased understanding and appreciation for design theory and environmental behavior studies.

What is theory?

• As I understand it, the word theory comes from the Greek word “theoria” which translates into contemplation (literally, to view or witness, to behold something as a spectator). The name “Design Observer” was chosen to reflect this idea – to view or witness, observe, or contemplate interior design through the lenses of multiple theories.

What is Criticism?

• Immediately thoughts of “doom” begin to bounce around in my mind. For the purpose of this class, I understand that criticism is actually about critical thinking and not about passing value judgements. In fact, I love the idea that criticism is actually a new way of looking at things, it’s an option to view things through another lense (whatever that lense may be).

What is Environment?

• This one I struggle to put into words. I’d like to believe that I have decent understanding of what an environment is. The best way for me to describe it is like this: Environment is your surroundings, whether real or perceived. One’s environment isn’t just about what you can see, touch, or smell, etc. It’s about intangible items as well.

The next few weeks should proof rather interesting – will I still hold to my original thoughts on these definitions? Or will I gain a better understanding of them? Though a single, defined theory for interior design would make things easier, I gotta admit, that would be rather boring too.

Filed under: criticism, Environment, Theory, criticism, design theory, interior design