The Earliest Days Of Civilisation

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Dissertation

Introduction.

Since the earliest days of civilisation, the development of shelter, tools and other functional objects, as well as their effective application and use, have been among the most important elements for the successful survival of man. While the fundamental necessity of buildings still remains in today's age, the way in which they are valued and used has drastically changed and the formally strong relationship between buildings and the objects that populate them seems to have been neglected a little. Take for example projects such as the Vitra fire station and the Park hill flats. These are cases in which the buildings, while aesthetically and structurally adequate (even award winning in the case of the fire station), failed to satisfy their core functions. Zaha Hadid's fire station was reviewed well as a piece of design and representation of concept and will undoubtedly be talked about for years to come. Unfortunately, while the form, concept, and basic function of the building worked and satisfied the brief set out by the clients (Vitra), it has been noted that the final users of the building felt seasick inside it and were wary of sharp edges and corners. Though the concept was a good idea and as a piece of Architecture it satisfied the client and the designer, the way in which the project was approached and developed resulted in them failing to satisfy the specific end users to the same degree. Although the fire station was made redundant by the development of fire departments in the surrounding area that serviced Vitra, the fact that on a recent visit to the building it was only being used to store some chairs that were waiting to be exhibited in the main showroom is testament to its lacking interior functionability. The Park Hill flats in Sheffield had a similar situation. A new and optimistic design concept seemed like the best solution for post war housing and the Corbusier inspired "towers in the sky" took form to house 3,000 people. The idea seemed like a good one to the Arcitects and clients at the time but once the real users moved in a whole new truth was revealed. The towers actually did not satisfy the final users in the long run, with bad noise insulation and many dark areas allowing for muggings and other crimes. By a mere 10 years into the life of the towers they had become an unsatisfactory place to live with the idea of community and socialisation being replaced by locked doors and quiet corridors. While these issues can be attributed to more than the building itself (social patterns and behaviour etc), I believe that it is the responsibility of the designer to analyse all these other aspects and consider them in the design. The flats may have worked better had the actual future inhabitants been consulted in the design process. In his book The Architecture of Happiness, Alain de Botton said

"Bad architecture is in the end as much a failure of psychology as of design. It is an example expressed through materials of the same tendencies which in other domains will lead us to marry the wrong people, choose inappropriate jobs and book unsuccessful holidays: the tendency not to understand who we are and what will satisfy us." (de Botton, 2007)

As in the case of the Vitra station and Park hill flats, buildings often end up satisfying the client and the design team but leaving the final users of the building displeased for one reason or another. This does not necessarily make it "bad architecture" but it does show an aspect that could potentially be improved. Issues like these usually arise because what the specific final users want or require from the building was not well considered or understood throughout the stages of design from beginning to end. Through this dissertation, I hope to analyse the architectural design process and identify the potential sources and impacts of not fully understanding the needs of final users of a building. Additionally, I plan to discuss whether modifications could be made to develop an approach that puts the specific necessities of the specific final users at the core of the process. While doing this, it is important to highlight that Architecture is more than the 1% of the famous and seemingly expertly designed buildings we learn about and see in magazines and publications, it is also the design of the skyscrapers, houses, offices and shopping centres people frequent and use. The "everyday" and "ordinary" Architecture must also be taken into account.

While recognizing that there are many different sources of inspiration for developing such a modified process, I decided to follow the Vitruvian idea of learning from different fields. Due to the strong connection between space (or place), the objects in that space and the people who interact with those objects, I chose to draw from the field of Product Design. While these two fields share an obvious and close historical connection, showing similar trends and methods, I would argue that, had those projects mentioned above (and other similar cases) been developed by looking through a Product Design lens, using a process that actively takes greater interest in and account of every minutiae of the specific users' needs, the buildings could have been more successful. In the same way as buildings, the quality and appeal of products varies greatly but by focusing on the extremes of buildings and products a clearer comparison and analysis can be made. Before proceeding further, however, it is important to define a product and Product Design in the context of this dissertation. To me, a product is any entity (both physical and non physical) that satisfies a particular want or need and that has been specifically designed for sale by a business to a consumer, either as individual items or en mass. Product Design is the relatively young field created around using a combination of technical and creative skills to provide beautiful yet functional solutions to problems and desires (Bürdek, 2005).

Within Product Design there are several opinions, theories and methods of design but more and more the process from initial development of product concept to producing the final manufactured object or service is becoming heavily focused on understanding and involving the final users - User Centred Design. I believe such a process could prove extremely beneficial if applied more extensively to the architectural design process. Architecture by definition is and has to be human centred but can it be more specifically user centred? When the client is not the final user, can the final users of a building be involved in and influence the design process? Through this dissertation I seek to explore if and where adopting such a highly user-oriented process that depends on iterating and adapting based on non professional opinion, can be successful at the architectural scale.

Despite the similarities between the methods of designing objects and buildings, differences do exist. These might only be due to the difference in scale and general function of the two but this dissertation will analyse this and aim demonstrate the potential benefits that could be gained from applying aspects the Product Design process to the architectural design process. To do this, I will draw a direct comparison between the two processes to see if there is in fact room for change. I will compare the two different approaches to designing both buildings and products. Based on this analysis, I will then discuss the potential and challenges of applying ideas from the product design process that deals predominantly with small-scale objects, to the architectural process that deals with relatively massive "objects" (buildings) and even whole cities. I would like to emphasise that the point of this dissertation is not to say one field is better than the other but merely to state that there is always room to improve and discover if one way of improving could be by changing the process of designing buildings from a passive to a more active user oriented one.

Chapter 1 - Architectural process.

Architectural design methods, processes and theories are constantly a source of debate and there are clearly multiple opinions on how to approach a design problem as an Architect. Looking back through history it seems four blanket methods of creating form (one step in a longer, more inclusive process) have emerged; pragmatic design (determined by materials and physical factors), typological design (determined by other known types and styles of buildings), analogic design (determined by designers interpretations of the world around them) and syntactic design (determined by rules and numbers). While this dissertation is concerned more with the longer process a project goes through from start to finish than a method of designing form, it is important to consider these, as the method used by individual Architects runs adjacent to and morphs the general process of designing a building (Broadbent, 1988). The subjective nature of design means that there can never be an exact identical process that every single person will follow, but there is a general approach to complete a whole project that has evolved and been proven to work. Each designer or Architect uses this process but has their own method of expressing themselves at the design stage in that process. This chapter explores the Architectural process used in practice and taught in education in the U.K. I have specified the location because I believe as explained later, the design process is adapted to suit the physical and cultural conditions it is being used in.

As a student with no Architectural or design background, the first thing I picked up on in my first year in an Architecture program was that there was more to creating a building than making line drawings. There is a long process to it. Our first project consisted of receiving a brief stating who the client was and what they were looking for. We then visited the site for a brief meeting with the client who explained what they do and their ethos followed by a several days of analysing the site; taking measurements, observing sun patterns, recording positions of surround buildings etc. This was then followed by a period of creative freedom. We as students were told to go away and come back with basic ideas and represent them both verbally and in drawings and sketch models. These ideas were then refined with design tutors several times after which concepts were finalised and expressive and technical drawings and models produced. Our ideas and representations were then critiqued and any additional refinements made before the final project was presented in the form of a portfolio. So it seems while every student had a different idea of how the proposed building should look and function, the overall process of "creating" this building, from start to finish was shared by all. Starting with a brief it then moved to analysis, then design, followed by appraisal before the final presentation of a solution to the brief (building). All briefs since this one have not had a connection to real life users. Students design and develop the project around hypothetical users that they imagine would use their building. Is this the Architectural design process in practice however or is this just how one particular school chooses to educate its students? While the principles of Architecture as defined by Vitruvius (durability, utility and delight) (REFERENCE) have never really changed, the role of the Architect in its creation has always been adapting based on external factors. As their role changed so too did the steps involved in the process they use to complete a project. After the industrial revolution and the growth of the machine, the tasks performed by Architects themselves in the creation of buildings have been greatly reduced. People such as engineers, lighting designers, city planners etc all now perform the tasks related to buildings that were previously the job of an Architect (Broadbent, 1988). This has meant that the whole design process has narrowed a bit, with a delegation of those tasks to non Architects. The order of things is still the same I believe, Architects it seems just have less quantification to do - something I believe allows for greater creative innovation. This narrowed process as it currently stands has been more or less similarly defined by many authors but more importantly by RIBA in their Plan of Work, a guide to the construction of buildings in the U.K. The process is as follows: Preparation (brief + site analysis), Concept design, Developed design, Technical design, Specialist design, Construction, Use and aftercare (post occupancy evaluation) (REFERENCE RIBA ONLINE). The exact details of this process can be seen in FIGURE X (insert figure number of plan of work from riba online). So it is clear that the process in practice is similar to that in education; brief, analysis, design, evaluation, final proposal and then finally use evaluation. Within this summarised process, there is a constant referral to the original brief to make sure the project continues to satisfy the clients requirements and once the building is opened and occupied it is the responsibility of the architect to follow up and ensure it performs as designed and satisfies the requirements of a building, the client and the users.

This last step is where I see an issue. While the way the building will be used and the people who will use it are obviously considered due to the fact that Architecture by definition centres around occupants, I believe the evaluation of satisfaction of the actual final users of the building should not be left until it is all built and finished. At that point how much can really feasibly be changed should the building not work as well for the users as the Architects thought it would. One of the principles of Architecture is durability; once it has been built it is not easy to make any significant changes to it because of the solidity and scale of a building. This issue is more obvious when the client is not the final user as the brief and desires for the building come from a party who has ideas and motives different to those of the actual final occupants. In that same first design brief I was given the purpose of the building and who the final users would be was mentioned by the clients who had an idea of what they wanted to provide to people but there was no actual interaction with those actual users to see what they wanted or needed. Surely when designing for a specific group of people those people should have some say. The issue is less apparent with projects where the client is the final user, but even in these cases, the clients actual role in the whole process is usually limited to providing initial ideas of what they want in the brief and design stage and then periodic meetings to ensure the construction is on track and finances are in order. They are not usually consulted about placement or size of windows or placement of fixed fittings for appliances, power outlets or light switches. Based on personal experience, these seemingly trivial details are just a few of many actually important decisions that could drastically improve how a house functions for its users. If for example a specific user and in this case client prefers to be able to switch the lights on from several different points in the room, they would definitely appreciate being able to convey this and feel like they actually contributed to the working of their specific house, as opposed to the Architect or electrical engineer deciding where the light switch should go based on where they usually go in most houses. This is what I meant by Architecture being human centred but not particularly user centred. The process has to account for a particular relevant type of user of a particular type of a building but the specific users of a specific building are not necessarily involved in an active fashion.

Chapter 2 - Product Design process.

Like buildings, the role and impact in our lives of so called products has changed, from the time of Leonardo da Vinci (popularly considered the first "designer") who designed extremely technical and functional objects, through centuries of more heavily ornamented and aesthetic based objects, to the age of the machine where the functionality was the aesthetic, to what they seem to have become now and since the 20th century - function masked by considered aesthetics. Sigried Giedion explained the this when he said the following, referring to the job of the 20th century product designer

"He fashioned the housing, saw to it that the visible machinery (of the washing machines) disappeared, and gave the whole, in short, a stream lined shape like the train or the automobile." (Giedion, 1948)

The concept of object design has been around as long if not longer than the concept of building design, with the earliest man having to design tools to fit a specific purpose. Product Design as we know it today however is a relatively young field, having really only been defined as a field since the mid 20th century and has only become as visible to the public as it is since the rise of the post modernist movement in Architecture at the end of the 1970s (Bürdek, 2005). The role and tasks of Product Designers seems to have changed and narrowed alongside those of Architects, with many of the specific technical tasks being delegated to other professions and only a more general knowledge of the technical aspects being required in addition to the design skills. In recent years the actual entities that are being designed has broadened to include non physical objects. The requirement for digital application and system design has led to 'interaction design' and product designers trying to learn more about how users actually experience and interact with digital products, with the interface (software) often being prioritised over the hardware in the process of creation. This has in turn resulted in a relatively new movement emerging called User Centred Design an idea made popular by Donald Norman while working at Apple (REFERENCE). This is a particular process of designing products and is the one I believe shows the most potential to benefit Architecture. While it was born through interface and software design, it can be applied to physical products with a functional purpose and I believe therefore to buildings as well. There are of course products without a function, or rather whose sole function is simply to exist as a beautiful object. For the purpose of this dissertation, however, those will not be considered because of the fact that buildings by definition have to do more than look good and hence it is only fair to compare them to objects that do the same.

The UCD process itself has been assigned several standardised key aspects. In order for a process to be considered user centred it must satisfy the following conditions.

The design is based upon an explicit understanding of users, tasks and environments.

Users are involved throughout design and development process.

The design is driven and refined by user-centred evaluation.

The process is iterative.

The design addresses the whole user experience.

The design team includes multidisciplinary skills and perspectives.

The overall process that a product goes through without is quite similar to that of a building. It starts with the initial brief of what the problem to be solved is, then goes through analysis, design, evaluation and final solution. The difference to Architecture lies in the fact that the design stage is a lot more iterative. This means that solution after solution are conceptualized, prototype after prototype are made and evaluation happens after each one, with the changes being reflected in the next prototype until a satisfactory final concept has been designed. Once UCD is brought into the process it then becomes even more iterative. A product driven by UCD especially, follows a less uni directional route from conception to completion than your average building, relying on iterations based on observations of or feedback from final users to generate the solution. Within UCD there are two routes one could take. The first is observation of final users in practice. For example, if the brief was to design a new office system (desks, chairs, storage etc.), the observation would be of current employees in their current working environment, noticing how they use and inhabit the current space and equipment, asking them what they like or do not like and what they would want from a new design. This introduces the "use evaluation" at the beginning of the project, which then informs the direction of design. The information gathered from users is constantly updated and designers evaluate the project against it as well as the brief. The second approach is called Participatory Design (PD). This is where final users are actively involved throughout the design process, being allowed to have real input in design decisions. Meetings are constantly held with final users or a representative group of users (in the case of large numbers). At each meeting the design is discussed and feedback provided. Changes are then considered and analysed for feasibility by design teams before being applied to a new prototype. Whether PD is used or not is dependent on several factors including the task at hand, the size and type of the final user group and the size and type of the design team as well as the product being designed. In any case, whether PD is used or not the whole process that still falls under UCD is one that I believe can be transplanted to the field of Architecture.

So, if I were to summarise the Product Design process, specifically the UCD process I would do so as follows:

Brief, specific user and contextual analysis and feedback, design, user feedback/evaluation against user data and brief, developed design, feedback/evaluation against user data and brief, further developed design, feedback/evaluation against user data and brief, final solution. The process is described well in a less linear fashion, as shown in the diagram below.

The most important thing to note is that good UCD does not mean users can lead the design process. The users are not the leaders and designers do not blindly take the opinions of users and apply them directly to a product. UCD just allows for users opinions, behaviours and trends to inform the designers who then use their professional expertise to analyse the information and come up with solutions that satisfy the user but also satisfy the principles of design and fit in with the ethos of company for which the product is being designed. The users often do not know what they want, nor do they all posses adequate design skills or contextual awareness to make final design decisions. Where PD is used, a clear design direction and idea must be presented to users in the form of a prototype so that users thoughts and ideas are instantly guided to and automatically follow those of the experts but possibly providing an insight that only they could, for example how they would like to use certain things while in certain situations. This feedback can then be understood by the design team and sculpted into an intelligent, functional, aesthetically appealing solution that express the brand of the seller. The key to good UCD and its differentiating feature is an extremely sharp and specific focus on the final user of a product, starting at the beginning of the development process and carried all the way through to the end. Illustrations of the different approaches to UCD are shown in the case studies in the following chapter.

(graphic layout tbd. REFERENCE)

This diagram shows the continuous feedback and iteration loop that a product goes through until a the final design meets the requirements of the brief and users and it can be output as a solution. As can be expected, UCD possesses its own set of problems and flaws as it relates to Product Design but this is not the discussion of the dissertation. The problems and benefits as it might relate to Architecture will be discussed in later chapter and in fact it turns out these issues are quite similar to those found in Product Design.

Chapter 3 - processes compared in case studies

In describing each process individually it is clear that they are actually quite similar. There is however a distinct difference to be seen in the final object or building when they are approached from an Architectural point of view or UCD point of view. One such building is the Stirling prize winning Peckham Library by Will Alsop. This £6.75 million project was praised not only by the profession but by the users too.

iphone case study. iphones have a more personal connection than say an htc or something else. everyone says let me get my iphone not my phone.

shopping centre case study

Wyly theatre, dallas, texas. Joshua Prince-Ramus (REX)

Peckahm library case study - talking to the public, UCD. "We have discovered that through workshops, consultations with the local population, raising proper budgets for big buildings – typified by Peckham Library and our work with C/plex, we can create landmark buildings that have a sense of ownership for the people who use them, and act as a catalyst to regeneration in deprived areas."

furniture case study

Chapter 4 - Critical analysis

Having described the two similar yet distinct processes in Architecture and Product design and discussed how these approaches result in distinct final solutions, we must now look at the relevance and possibility of applying UCD to the architectural design process. Can we apply it, should we apply it, and if so, what are the potential problems and benefits of doing so. As I see it, hindrances to the application of UCD to Architecture could come from a few different sources; the process itself, the physical, economical, functional and contextual differences both as a whole and within components between an object and a building, certain opinions within the profession, design trends within architecture as well as certain types of clients and users.

This leads us to ask the question why should we apply UCD to architecture? As mentioned, I believe architecture is most definitely human centred but for the most part, not specifically centred around the final users of a building. The case study of (INSERT BUILDING NAME) shows this and highlights that there is room for improvement when considering Architecture as every building designed and developed by an Architect, not just the famous ones that win awards and fill magazines. What are the benefits that we could gain by applying UCD to the existing building development process? Firstly, I would say that by involving the users, or overtly expressing that the views of final users have been taken into account with each specific building, those users will feel more connected to the building and invest more interest into it. For example, when designing a shopping centre if PD specifically was used and members of the public from the surrounding area (who would clearly be the most frequent final users) were involved in the process and feel that their input was taken into consideration when designing the final building, the shopping centre would feel more personal to the local population and therefore hold more value with them. A relationship to the building would form in the same way that people form a personal connection with their iPhones. The relationship to the owners (clients) of the shopping centre would also improve and a more "friendly" or "community" based brand would be formed instead of a "commercial take my money" brand. David Chipperfield has been quoted as saying that the public opinion of Architecture is a hostile one and I too believe that there tends to be a disconnect between Architects and the actual people who use their buildings since during the development process only the clients are really consulted. An approach like the above could help to form a closer relationship and reduce the hostility. Another possible benefit would be buildings that are clearer and more understandable. When people can understand the environment around them and they know their way aroud they feel a lot more comfortable such as in their homes. An intergration of UCD would also help minimise the chance of flaws in the building being discovered during the post occupancy evaluation. The fact that many iterations would have been made with the final users at the core of the discussion would mean that the different ways in which they could possibly actually use the final building would be discovered and planned for early on in the process so that by the time they actually inhabit the building it works as planned and fewer costly flaws in the way the building works would occur. This would not account for human error or faults in construction but at least one possible failure point would be significantly reduced. For example in the case of the Vitra fire station. If the way firemen use a building had been analysed in more detail starting at the beginning of the project, considering the time spent sitting and waiting in the building, their comfort and safety requirements and psychological effect that prolonged exposure to a series of non vertical walls has on them, perhaps the building would have been more successful for more than its design concept. Functionality of buildings would also be affected by using a more UCD oriented development process. I believe that by designing each building around its specific users it will lead to design that integrates products and objects and their functionality into the building itself - buildings that do things. Instead of Architecture merely staging our activities and the objects in our lives the building could provide the functionality and help us perform tasks. As in the case of the Dee and Charles Wyly theatre (see case study). The functionality was designed into the building itself and around the people who use it instead of spaces being designed and then objects placed in those spaces to provide function. When this happens, the users think of the building as more than a shelter, relying on it to perform daily tasks and therefore considering and valuing it more. This approach could help in rebuilding our connection to the environment around us, not only the objects we use.

"It’s time for architecture to do things again, not just represent things." (REFERENCE Joshua Prince-Ramus)

MORE BENEFITS

So, the benefits of using UCD in the Architectural design process as shown above are definitely worth considering changing a long running process but is it even possible to apply UCD? The fact that UCD was born out of systems design means that it has developed in a relatively small scale world. The defining principles of UCD such as iterations are all possible when working with fairly small objects as full scale 1:1 representations can be quickly modelled and prototyped especially with recent advances in 3D printing. These to scale, accurate, detailed prototypes can help to initiate discussion with users as they can get a clear idea of the project and the design concept, giving them a good base on which to provide feedback without having to posses the creative and visualisation skills of a designer. They also provide designers with an almost instant way for designers to get a clear idea of what the actual final output will be. Is it then possible to do the same with a building that is countless times larger in scale? Until recently I think it would have been difficult, verging on impossible to use the same level of iteration as a building design process. The history of Architecture itself is a form of iteration, with new generations learning from the previous ones but when talking about each building individually it was extremely difficult to get a realistic representation of the final building until it was finally constructed and finished. By this point it is too late for any faults to be efficiently remedied. Where a small product could be almost exactly modelled in real life over and over again a building cannot, or could not. The effect of light as it bounces through the building or the effect of scale or colour on people could only be speculated on based on scientific calculations but I now think it is possible to prototype a building in the same way as an object. Developments in 3D modelling and CAD software now allows Architects to almost exactly replicate the ideas they have in their minds and print out images that have been shown to look almost exactly like photos taken later of the final building. External factors, internal environments, circulation of people and vehicles, reflections, transparency, functionality, mechanics and every other aspect of a building that might be hard to accurately pre-empt during design can now be mapped, calculated and output by a computer. These results can then be analysed by design teams, and evaluated with users or against user data, large or minute changes can be made to the model and a new iteration birthed and evaluated until a final solution is settled on, in the same was as UCD based product. An even more recent development illustrates the definite potential for iteration in architecture. 3D printers and the process they use is now in the early stages of being scaled up to allow us to not only produce anything up to 1:1 models of buildings in a matter of hours but even actual solid concrete structures themselves. Giant 3D printers can build up a design in layers, automatically lay reinforcement, wiring and plumbing all within about 20 hours. From a development process point of view, this all means that detailed, functioning prototypes can be produced quickly at almost any scale (considering cost) in order to get an idea of what the real space feels like and can be evaluated with and by users or against the user feedback. Different prototypes and iterations can be produced, smaller ones showing function and servicing, larger full scale ones showing the environment, structure and the organisation of space. This is important when determining the possibility of applying UCD because the fact that the average user often does not have a clear idea what they want right away means that prototyping design ideas that guide the project and can then be modified by user feedback is necessary when involving people without the skills of an architect or designer. This brings about another potential issue. Is it infact possible to determine the end users of a building and observe or involve them in a successful way without hindering the development of a project which already has so many constraints. Adding in steps to the development of a building will theoretically increase the time it takes and the money it costs. Determining users is something I believe will be quite simple to do seeing as a building is fixed in place and does not circulate the globe as products can and do. Considering this, the information from clients, and the brief it is fairly clear to see who the majority of final users will be but the challenge comes when trying to efficiently incorporate them into the process. Observations, interviews, group meetings and feedback sessions all require many hours which translates into increased costs. Involving users also introduces a new set of goals, interests and attitudes towards the project, that could possibly conflict with those of the client and/or design team which makes effective communication between all parties difficult and therefore finding a solution even more challenging. When the client is not the user, they may have a different idea of what they want for the building for example in an office where the client who needs to run a business would like a certain layout that they feel optimises efficiency but users may prefer another that is more comfortable. This can only be overcome by setting ground rules at the beginning of the project, laying out the agenda clearly and emphasising the importance of communicating effectively and participating actively. All of this must be taken into account when deciding whether or not to implement UCD in Architecture. I believe that with the proper training and planning the benefits outweigh these costs and challenges and in reality, the percentage increase in cost of using a UCD process is quite small when one considers a project as a whole and the vastly higher budget of a building compared to a product. There are also other aspects and technologies already in existence in building development and construction that when introduced had the potential of having a far greater cost to benefit ratio but have been accepted and teams have learned to manage them accordingly. I believe involving users can and should be considered in the same way - a potential cost that results in a definitely better final solution when properly implemented. However, as is currently the case there are some who have completely opposing opinions of what Architecture is or how it should be practiced. I do not think anyone is right or wrong as everyone has different styles, tastes and preferences but the opposition to UCD must be considered. The fact that this process would introduce "outsiders" and allow them to influence the architectural decisions may lead people to question whether this undermines Architects and stifles creativity and innovation. This is an issue that has come up in the small scale design world and I feel applies to Architecture too. There is an idea that because users have a say in the design, any creative freedom is stolen from the Architect and this lack of creativity then means that innovation is slowed, since design is now in the hands of individuals who do not possess the skills nor experience to carry it out. To this I refer to a statement made previously that UCD is not User Led Design and does not mean handing over control to the users. It simply means taking an approach that focuses on and values them more specifically but ultimately the final decision is made by the professional. Alan Cooper wrote an article in which he used the analogy of a doctor. To paraphrase, if a patient (user) goes to a doctor (Architect) with a broken arm and says its broken but does not hurt when in a certain position so he should just duct tape it in that position, the doctor does not relinquish control and simply take their idea and implement it. As the professional he must listen to feedback, analyse it, determine its true feasibility and in the end make a decision that provides the best solution (REFERENCE). So, the Architect still maintains control over the process and still has all the creative freedom but should tailor that creativity to a specific situation instead of assuming what people in that case would do. In the same way that a doctor should not assume the condition of a patient, he observes the specific case user and takes their feedback to provide a solution specific to them. To me the biggest concern with a using a process like UCD in Architecture it that of context. When designing buildings a big factor is how well it fits into the physical and cultural surroundings. At times Architecture can even change the surrounding culture, something that makes the field so relevant and important. Will involving users result in Architecture only conforming to culture and not influencing it anymore? I think this is best answered by the Apple case study. Despite using a process that did not directly involve users, they without a doubt have an extremely clear understanding of the final users of their products and the type of people they are. They then took this understanding and used it as the base for their creativity before releasing a product (iPhone) that innovated and transformed trends and the design world in general. Architecture could work the same way. There is no reason for UCD to stifle innovation, it just sets the bar a little higher as the innovative buildings (such as the Vitra fire station or Park Hill flats) will now be a lot more useable in reality, in addition to the cultural and design statement and expression that is already present.

So, yes, there are issues with applying UCD to Architecture but I believe that for each of them there is adequate reason to and possibility for a work around.

So, when deciding whether or not to approach Architecture from a UCD point of view several questions must first be asked and answered in addition to those already in practice; Who are the specific final users? What are the goals of users, clients and architect? What are the costs and benefits? How to best create an environment for efficient communication?

Conclusion

TEXT

UCD was originally developed in relation to systems and software design. The growth of microchips and the computer lead designers to the realisation that the interaction between the technology and the user was just as important if not more important than the hardware itself. The satisfaction of using the product was key, not how clever the closing mechanism was as the average user did not notice or value that as much. In more recent years, the value of hardware and aesthetics has gained more importance with the way things look and feel becoming integrated within the overall experience resulting in UCD being applied to that aspect too. The process in relation to product design itself is not perfect, nothing is, but this dissertation is more concerned with the problems with the process and its problems as they relate to Architecture.

This is a company that while does not directly say it follows UCD, does have an extremely targeted focus on users. They spent years researching and developing products and gaining an understanding of people, behaviours and culture globally. They then put this to use and developed a product line that did not conform to current trends but created a whole new one, one that spread globally and influenced the whole design world. They did not directly use PD but understood that the user wanted something simpler and more elegant than what was available at the time

NOTES

They were there three days and it rained every day and they kept walking around — I noticed they were looking under things and looking for things, and they wanted to know where the buckets were hidden, you know? People put buckets out … I was clean. There wasn’t a bloody leak in the place, it was just fantastic. But you’ve got to—yeah, well up until then every building leaked, so this … [Laughter]

You’ve all heard the Frank Lloyd Wright story, when the woman called and said, "Mr. Wright, I’m sitting on the couch and the water’s pouring in on my head." And he said, "Madam, move your chair." [Laughter] So, some years later I was doing a building, a little house on the beach for Norton Simon, and his secretary, who was kind of a hell on wheels type lady, called me and said, "Mr. Simon’s sitting at his desk and the water’s coming in on his head." And I told her the Frank Lloyd Wright story

I think history has shown that there’s a need for iconicity in public buildings because they become a source of pride for the community. . . . It’s the accumulation of these buildings as icons that identifies the community. What’s happening in the world today is everything is iconic. It seems that we’re starting a new language or paradigm for city building. And there’s now a backlash against that. But that means you go back to the 1960s where you build boxes, banality. That seems wrong.

BUILDINGS AND PRODUCTS MUST BE MORE THAN FUNCTIONAL - SOME ARE SEMIOTIC OR JUST MADE TO DELIGHT PEOPLE. - SIMILARITIES BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND PRODUCTS, PDES AND ADES.

The ISO standard describes 6 key principles that will ensure a design is user centred:

The design is based upon an explicit understanding of users, tasks and environments.

Users are involved throughout design and development.

The design is driven and refined by user-centred evaluation.

The process is iterative.

The design addresses the whole user experience.

The design team includes multidisciplinary skills and perspectives.

arch already follows 1, 5,6. 4 to an extent (history, colours, materials etc) but with cad and 3d models this can be a lot more so.

UCD HELPS FORM A COMMUNITY. WHY IS THIS GOOD.

EVERY BRIEF SINCE THE FIRST HASNT HAD REAL POTENTIAL USERS. MAYBE IF IT DID WE WOULD FEEL MORE CONNECTED TO THE PROJECT AND HAVE A SOLID STARTING POINT. BUT WOULD THIS MEAN EVERYONES PROJECTS ARE TEH SAME OR SACRIFICE CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION.

PUBLIC OPINION ON ARCHITECTURE - HOSTILE, INVOLVING USERS COULD IMPROVE THE RELATIONSHIP AND REDUCE CONFLICT.

DO WE WANT TO APPLY IT/WHY SHOULD WE APPLY IT - pros and cons. does Arch need changing? proof that there is a flaw in arch or proof that it can be beneficial. BENEFITS/PROBLEMS

HOW SHOULD WE APPLY IT - literally and to what extent and context and what/where will it be seen within architecture, buildings and education.

CONCLUSION NOTES

WHERE WILL YOU SEE THE EFFECTS OF UCD IN A BUILDING. LAYOUTS, SCALE OF ROOMS AND ELEMENTS BOTH INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY. - CONCLUSION

UCD would lead to designing from the inside out as an accepted method - interior architecture?

ARCHITECTURE IS STILL ABOUT EXPRESSION AS WELL SO DONT WANT TO ELIMINATE ALL THESE SUBJECTIVE IDEAS AND METHODS BUT JUST ADDING A CONSTRAINT

EFFECT ON EDUCATION.

CONTEXT - do buildings need to fit in with their surroundings. a product can be completely different from another similar one.

form is a function, function follows function.

after modernism arhictects looked at history to find the humanity again

revolutions in architecture happen when architects disagree with a certain style and rebel against it. that sets the trend. the people just fit in because theyre adaptable but is that fiar?

can have the starchitect iconic buildings and the buildings that delight but this process will apply to those everyday buildings,theeveryday archtiecture and make thosebetter.

Park Hill Flats exterior [Image]. Available: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Park_Hill_close-up.JPG#filehistory [Accessed 25/10/2012].

RIBA [Online]. Available: http://www.architecture.com/ [Accessed 05/01/2013.

Broadbent, G. (1988). Design in architecture: architecture and the human sciences. London: Fulton.

Bürdek, B. E. (2005). Design: History, Theory and Practice of Product Design. Basel: Birkhauser

de Botton, A. (2007). The Architecture of Happiness. London: Penguin Adult.

Giedion, S. (1948). Mechanization takes command: a contribution to anonymous history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.