Awaiting the chisel of the mind
AS THE CLICHÉ GOES, THE CONCEPT – usually a ‘divine moment of inspiration’ by the solemn architect – is quickly transferred to whatever is handy before the insight fades: the sketch on the napkin or a primal scribble in a revered sketchbook. It becomes a shorthand reference for the project. I do it myself (see 01).
When I am contributing to a student design crit, I try to keep my own opinion – my likes and dislikes – away from the discussion (well, as much as one consciously can). I try to use the student’s own words, their own terms of reference, to judge how well they have achieved their own intent. How well did they solve the problem that they themselves have made?
Architects are trained to invent a ‘narrative’ for each of ‘their’ buildings. It’s the story we tell our client, and often ourselves, about the reasoning for our decision-making. Often, lately, I wince as our ‘architectural narratives’ sound more and more alike – the parody of architecture speak.
Pete Rice, a renowned structural engineer, no longer with us, argued that the supposed rationality of a project’s genesis is simply the wilfulness of the individual architect falling back on their standard repertoire, personal values and problem-solving techniques to create a design (see 03).
An idea gains more heft when it references a series of design intents that provide a decision-making framework. The input of valued consultants and client feedback overwrites the framework as it iterates through successive design cycles. New constraints,
