To the thinking layperson, the idea of "evidence-based" design seems like a no-brainer...wouldn't every multi-million dollar building project, particularly one that contributes to the health and survival of thousands over the course of its lifetime, be based on research of what works and what doesn't, in that building's precedents?
Er, yes, and no.
In school, I first encountered this idea under the name of Post-Occupancy Evaluation, in the Psychology of Space world, and under Christopher Alexander's "Patterns of Architecture" rubric in design studio. I was enchanted and very much encouraged that some building designers tried to listen to how well or poorly buildings succeed. However, I was warned that it was out of vogue.
Entering the working world, I began to see how and why - economic engines ran high at the time, and pressure was on to produce inhabitable buildings NOW. I heard complaints everyday from ordinary people about how this building we were using would work better if...but these complaints didn't make it to the owner, or if I carried them to the sealing professionals, I was asked for "evidence"...I was standing there with "evidence"! What was meant was "show me in a design standard book produced for the entire world to use, regardless of local needs". These design standard books obviously lagged behind the times, and their usefulness was diluted by their attempt to serve every typology.
So, economic engine and lack of efficient communication of results.
Both of these conditions have changed now, and I hope I see a resulting change in the attitude towards building design, led by the high-stakes world of health care...where every penny is rapidly becoming scrutinized, increasing data tells us how the organization of space helps to reduce infection and promote healing, and the whole country worries about future market demands. I look forward to working in such a world - this is truly using teamwork to learn from precedent!
Comments