An article on Treehugger.com grabbed my eye tonight as I saw a post entitled How Much Should Design Cost?.
The article itself was in reference to two separate views regarding the pricing of residential stock plans for sale. One approach was presented by David Wax of FreeGreen which offers "free" or "low cost" plans that can be modified (for an additional cost). However purchasing a set of documents for construction seems (overall) cheaper then having a house custom designed through the traditional method of hiring a designer up front.
The contrasting argument is made by Greg La Vardera who muses that the added cost of good design more than pays for itself and that by creating an available library (at a decent price point) that the general public will become better educated about the role of good design and realize its inherent value.
While both arguments begin with the idea of a stockplan however the differentiation of various models supposedly creates the standout argument that "you get what you pay for" which was my take from the whole discussion (even as a preconception).
ou don't have to read my over-generalized take on the topic, feel free to read/watch the interviews yourself and come to your own conclusion.
Personally this is a very interesting argument. My past experience leads me to agree that residential design is a valuable way for young, unestablished designers to build their portfolio and create their own language and technique. The interaction with a client and the various legislative/regulatory bodies give reason and purpose to various configurations. Once these houses are undergoing being designed in a vacuum to pander to either expected market value or a specific price point it becomes too easy to make them tentative and boring. In fact, it almost becomes necessary as the argument that would have been used to justify a non-standard idea would never have been created in the first place.
The severe lack of site specificity also is troublesome. Architects tend to forget about the site for some reason. I don't quite understand how some got through school not grasping that their structure is sitting somewhere, upon something. Once this disconnect has been created I worry what the success of the structure would be in/for a viable neighborhood. Unless these plans are for greenfield construction in the suburbs where contextual interaction is negated.
I suppose this is my argument against pre-fabricated design as well. It is this commodification of "design" which isn't architectural design or even industrial design (because ID usually takes into account the human scale, orientation and context). Pre-fab and StockPlans could be called Product Design. Chosen online, plucked from a white shelf, shipped in a truck and dropped off at (where) your front door (will be) without any concern to its surroundings (which makes me wonder about the "green-ness" of a generic system). The sense of scale and placement is to be chosen by one without the training (the client) who only has their own exposure (for better or worse) to base their decisions upon with limited guidance.
The argument that these prefab/stock plans are cheaper and therefore better is ludicrous when one considers that most of the population live in too much house, way more then they need and are saddled with the upkeep and maintenance costs. One may initially pay more to live in a well designed space but it is, after all, a well designed space. There is a reason people will pay a bit more for a better product. It lasts longer, functions better and is more fulfilling to experience.
Isn't that what we should be "selling" anyway?
No comments:
Post a Comment