Just Living in the Holocene Like It's 2024, Impermanence is the Permanent, and It'll be Like This Forever, Won't It?

Coming off of the holiday, there is a heightened awareness of time and our perception of it. Christmas landed on a Monday this year, and new years day the following Monday. Our businesses and communities slowed, but not stopped, during this time. One could feel the tension between taking a pause to be with families verses continuing to march on towards continued growth and expansion. We live in a society where decline is concerning and neutrality is death. And death, well that's to be avoided at all costs. Because, if you work hard enough, and keep pushing, you'll beat it. Right?

At least that's the reality I perceive in our culture. Our capitalistic economic structure is predicated on this sentiment, perpetual growth. I believe it permeates into our individual mindsets every day. If we keep doing these things, then this thing will happen, then this thing, then I'll be happy. There's a sense of timelessness, or certainty that there will be enough time, to delay contentment and satisfaction with one's own daily life. Yet, this is contrary to how the rest of our reality behaves.

We are born, we live, we die. These broad strokes sound like the beginning of a bumper sticker, but how much do we let those aspects drive our behavior? I would argue, the evidence is best represented in the nuance of the 'living' part. Do we live our lives as if we'll breathe, smell, see, hear, walk, speak, hug, spend time with,...forever.? To grapple with the impermanence of these things is at odds with our culture, and perhaps our own biology. From my own personal experience, it requires very direct and mindful effort to combat the 'enough time' paradigm. It's uncomfortable, sad and beautiful at the same time, and arguably necessary to live an appreciative life.

I was forced to grapple with the finite nature of life when confronted with the loss of loved ones. Even then, I don't think I really allowed myself to settle into thoughts around my own final chapter. Socially, conversations on death and decay aren't exactly great party conversations. I first let myself really lean in to thinking about the end when reading a book by Steve Covey, where you write your own eulogy. This writing should ultimately help shape what you focus in the now to achieve what you want said about you in the end. The next moment probably would've been discovering a meditation that was introduced to me by Sam Harris, through his app on guided meditation. And then most recently, I finished a book called 'Outlive' by Peter Attia that targets long term physiological outcomes and provides possible behavior to achieve them. All three of these angles start with the end in mind and work backwards. To say that this mindset changes your approach on things is an understatement.

Contemplation on my own timeline affects every decision I make. The acceptance that everything is impermanent allows me keep an eye on the bigger picture, even when things in the immediate fight for the contrary. From much practice, I've experienced a greater resiliency when faced with the shifting sands of life. Perhaps this is because it's easier to accept change when you've savored what life has provided thus far. When I have experienced moments where a new norm seemed imminent, the realization of not knowing how good I had it was as difficult as the thing itself.

For instance, I experienced sudden and severe back pain several years ago. After seeing a specialist and having a number of scans, it seemed very possible that I might have to live with chronic pain. Living without pain was just a given to me until that moment, I had never even contemplated its value in my everyday existence. Then suddenly, that aspect of my life seemed to be forever gone. I was equally frustrated with the pain I was enduring as I was with the fact that I had never once thought, 'how great today is that I can get out of bed and live my life without any pain whatsoever.' It was a feeling of regret and shame in a sense, shame of the arrogance that felt inherit in the perception that I would be free from physical suffering forever. This experience also made me realize that significant gratitude doesn't have to come from suffering or loss. We have the ability, as thinking humans, to imagine other ways of life, experience them with our minds, and generate a whole world of thankfulness just by making yourself more aware of the reality in which you live.

If I were to choose a different order of discovery, I would recommend starting with Sam Harris's meditations, then move to Steve Covey's eulogy concept, and then go to Attia's Outlive. I think all three pursuits appeal to me because they, collectively, touch on the mind, body, and spirit and come to terms with our duration on this planet with some type of actionable approach to living with the end as a palpable concept in one's own daily life. I think in a way, I approach these as tools to aid in avoiding as much regret as possible. For instance, Covey mentioned that one of the primary items that people have stated as regrets when reflecting on their own lives was that they didn't spend enough time with those they loved. If you accept that as possible truth for yourself, it offers a reference frame in which you can analyze any decision, i.e. 'will this life course bring me closer or further away from the people I want to be around? If the answer is closer, proceed. If not, decline.' I'll end my thoughts with a quote from Steve Covey, 'The key is not to prioritize your schedule but to schedule your priorities.'

Sam Harris: https://www.wakingup.com/about

Covey, Steve, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Simon & Schuster, Re-Issue Edition, November 21, 2013

Attia, Peter, Outlive, Harmony, First Edition, March 28, 2023

Creative Problem Solving

Creative Problem Solving

I just finished a lecture series entitled, 'The Creative Thinker's Toolkit.'  I almost never started it because I was expecting content and tone that seem common place when discussing creativity.  By that I mean, creativity is often presented as something that you're born with.  It is often thought of as being short or tall. You either possess one of these attributes or you do not.  When it comes to creativity, I often hear terms in my field that sound something like, 'oh yes, he/she is very talented.'  By implication, I hear, 'the gods have come down and bestowed the characteristic of creativity upon these people.'  And of course, when I've heard similar compliments directed towards me, I know the truth.  Creativity is not magic.  It is not something humans conjure up from the spiritual world and channel into the physical.  From my experience, and similarly to the content of the lecture series I'm about to discuss, creativity comes from a process, from many attempts, from hard work, and applied effort.  No–Santa Claus did not come down and gift Picaso the amazing ability to paint a new world one day.  As the lecturer pointed out, Pablo Picaso painted over 20,000 works during his career.  Here is the math on that:  if Pablo painted one piece of work every day, that means he would have painted a piece of art every day for approximately 55 years.  

'The Creative Thinker's Toolkit' is a lecture series presented by professor Gerard Puccio.  He's studied the field of creativity for over 30 years, and he delivers the content in a very accessible and scientific manner.  The latter was what fascinated me the most about the content.  Interestingly, I do not remember a professor ever discussing creative problem solving as something that could be accessed by a consistent process.  The content always came off as almost mystical.  There were some classes where instructors would require us to use some of the tools Puccio discusses, i.e. models, analogy, etc.  However, it was never explicitly stated that we were using specific processes to generate ideas.  In contrast, Puccio's professional mission has been to 'democratize creativity' (sourced from bio).  I love that idea.  This sentiment runs counter to much of my career, and certainly education.  And I get it to some extent, as one who has aspired to be in the creative world, believing that creativity is a gift endorses feelings of esteem and high self-worth. Ultimately, there's no reason why everyone can't feel good about solving creative problems.  We'll all have to deal with them at some point in our lives, so we might as well be skilled at solving them.

Puccio applies clear definitions and language to the steps involved in the creative process as well as highlights when creative problem solving is needed and when it is not.  I cannot speak for everyone, but when I typically think of an image of a creative person or field, the typical stereotypes come to mind:  painters in a studio, musicians on a stage, dreamers dreaming.  When we analyze creative problem solving applications, we see that it is actually any time someone cannot research and find a specific answer to a problem at hand.  This definition is much more broad than I have ever considered.  It lends creative problem solving to a wide range of behavior, from engaging with your children on what to do over the weekend to creating a product that has never been made before.  I love this idea.  I've never really thought about the fact that deciding on fun and inventive things to do over the weekend with my son actually originates from a creative process.  Simply applying the term 'creative' to the approach makes it much more appealing than it would be otherwise.    

The lecture series goes through four primary phases in the creative problem solving process and breaks down each phase into various approaches and systems to tackle each one.  The four phases are:  clarify, ideate, narrow, and implement.  Puccio also points out two critical tactics that should occur with each phase–divergent thinking and convergent thinking.  Without rewriting the whole lecture series, I encourage anyone reading this to listen to the series or look up those terms.  Most people will have a natural inclination to enjoy or prefer one or two of the phases listed.  By examining all the necessary phases that occur through the creative problem solving process (whether you are aware of them or not), you can more effectively identify your own weak areas in actually solving creative problems.  For instance maybe you're heavy in the clarifying phase, which is essentially identifying the problem.  I personally think this is critical, but a common tendency is for people who gravitate towards this area to become stuck in analysis paralysis and never actually move on to the other necessary phases to actually solve the problem.  If this is you and you don't know it, wouldn't it be great to recognize that so you can be more effective at producing the results you're after?  Perhaps this means setting time limits for this phase or limiting data points to a specific number?  

I just touched on two terms:  divergent and convergent thinking.  You most likely apply these two types of thinking every day, but you may not be using them in the best way.  At least that was my case until listening to this series.  Divergent thinking can be thought of as coming up with as many ideas or concepts as you can for a particular challenge.  Convergent thinking can be thought of as the narrowing of this process, essentially that's when the editor comes into the room and points out the difficulties or hurdles that each solution may need to address.  The common occurrence when people go through this process is applying convergent judgment too early in the process.  An example might be, you're at the office and your team has huddled around a conference room to come up with a way to work through problem X.  Some courageous person throws out an idea, and then the idea is met with, 'that won't work because Y and Z.'  This immediate idea-judgment process results in very low problem solving.  Most people would be very unlikely to continue to put forth ideas after being shut down.  I bet this same pattern happens to most of you, whether it's work related or simply trying to decide what to do on a Friday evening.  Deferring judgment until after all ideas are presented results in a better flow of ideas without the slowdown of applied judgment too early in the process.  

Quantity.  That was a key term that I definitely heard.  Like most people, I can be guilty of believing that the best idea might be the first, or at least within the first five ideas.  Puccio points out that initial ideas often come from familiar neural pathways.  So if novel is what you're after, it's most likely not going to be within the first attempts.  More attempts forces the brain to make different associations that can often result in novel ideas that wouldn't have presented themselves otherwise.  Also, I believe the common perception of brilliant ideas is that the best one comes down to the author in a flash of light.  It is as if Paul McCartney was walking along and the entire White Album came to his mind in its fully formed version.  We want to ignore the tremendous hours spent by the band practicing, playing, writing together, working and reworking songs until they were right.  Why do we that?  I believe it’s because we want magic to be real.  There is some part of us that really wants to believe that superheros are among us.  Perhaps they are, but it's not because of innate abilities.  It's arguably because they applied a rigorous amount of effort to a personally effective process at something they felt extremely passionate about.  

I encourage anyone reading this to listen to 'The Creative Thinker's Toolkit' on audible.  It will provide you with the language and clear processes to reference for a huge range of challenges that you may be facing in your own life.  I see myself referencing this material for many years to come, and I've already identified about a dozen areas that could use some deeper analysis using the tools Puccio outlines.  And if you're someone who believes the phrase you've told yourself, or perhaps you've been told, 'I am just not creative,' please ignore that and dig deeper into your own imagination.  Ignore the haters and create, dream, work to solve what's in front of you. 

Habits

I would consider myself an avid Audible listener. I listened to over nine days worth of content in 2021. That was actually a bit low for me because of the pandemic. I spent almost no time in the car during the first six months of the year. I think it's a great platform to aid in learning new material and fill the gaps of time that you might otherwise sit idly or fill your mind with whatever task is next in the queue. Audible also provides recommendations based on the content you've downloaded. That's how I discovered the book, 'Atomic Habits,' by James Clear. I appreciate the efforts of individuals who spend time analyzing human behavior, in general as well as from an efficiency point of view. Clear's content struck a chord with me because it paralleled some of the content I've listened to on the Tim Ferriss podcast (https://tim.blog). Both of these authors are on a mission to make their time on this planet as productive and efficient as possible. In particular, Clear has done a great job in outlining how powerful habits really are.

I don't think anything I'm about to say deserves a spoiler alert. I'll stay as general as possible. The book itself begins with some history of the author's childhood, which ultimately started him on a path to focus heavily on habits and their intrinsic role in our lives. Whether our habits are good or bad, they ultimately shape how we live. In essence, we are our habits. He points out that our brain has a natural ability to makes steps out of the tasks we often repeat, day after day. The purpose of this is so that our minds utilize less energy, which ultimately leaves us with a greater surplus of brain power to tackle new, complex tasks. These habits may not even be as obvious as you might think. For instance, you may have developed a habit of thinking a particular thought every time you see yourself in the mirror, or every time you see you partner, or every time you do something well or something not so well. Whatever that thought is, whether it's 'I'm a genius,' or 'what does he want now,' causes you to feel a particular way. These feelings then ultimately cause you to behave in a certain way. Your behaviors ultimately bring about certain consequences, and on we go. And what's even more interesting to me about all of this? Much of these thoughts and experiences happen without our awareness.

The habits we establish may seem meaningless when thought about in isolation. But if you look at them across the board, they add up to be something very meaningful. We can accept the basic programming we're given as children and operate on autopilot with whatever tools we were given. Or we can do some self examination and work towards creating patterns that could ultimately lead to the type of life and the type of peace that we may want. I think it's worth taking inventory of one's own life and try to determine what habits are working and what are not. Mr. Clear suggested a similar task in his book. He offers the advice of taking inventory of your life. Go from habit to habit of your typical day, and categorize each one as positive, negative, or neutral. It's probably rather difficult for most of us to be honest with ourselves to the point that it might mean giving up something we indulge in, but that's why I think it's such a powerful process. It forces you to be real with yourself. I should also point out, the goal he establishes isn't necessarily to form a habit in isolation. The goal is to become the type of person you want to be, and work from there. So if you take the challenge of analyzing your habits, the measure of whether the habit is good, bad, or neutral is to ask yourself, 'is this a habit of someone who would be like the kind of person I want to become?'

Habits are of particular interest to me because the analysis of them, their formation, and their outcome feel very much like a design process of sorts. This is very true if you follow the logic Clear points out: start with who you want to become (the big picture), narrow down to the habits (work through the details, and make sure they support the big picture). We're designing our lives with each little decision, whether we realize it or not. The last point I would like to make is about identity. Clear points out that we often establish identities on fragile concepts. We develop habits of saying things like, 'I am a soldier,' or 'I am a CEO.' He notes the danger in this by pointing out that identities can shatter when circumstances change. Who are you when you're no longer in active duty? Who are you when you're no longer a CEO of a company? Rather, we should frame our points of view around the lasting qualities that allow us to do perform these roles. So rather than saying, 'I am a good CEO,' rephrase the self-talk to state, 'I'm good at creating new business and leading people to achieve new goals.' Focus on the qualities that allow your sense of self to stay intact as life shifts and bends. This notion interests me as an architect. In the profession, we do not say 'I think about buildings for money,' or 'I design spaces for people to inhabit.' We always say, 'I am an architect.' There's even emphasis on this when you go through the process of getting licensed. Those who regulate the license process are quick to point out, 'you can't call yourself an architect until your licensed.' If I were to flip the script now, I would probably say something like, 'Good, because architecture is a thing I do to support my family. It's not who I am as a person.'

Sources:

Clear, James, Atomic Habits, October 16, 2018

Website: https://jamesclear.com/atomic-habits

Tim Ferriss website: https://tim.blog

What's in a Label?

Well, it depends. Are we talking about a candy bar from a Kroger? It would include the ingredients required to give you that dopamine/serotonin sensation, many of which you may or may not be able to pronounce or understand without having a chemistry degree. Maybe you're asking about some eggs from whole foods? If so, you'll be able to read about the farm the chickens came from, how they were raised, what food they ate, and if there was the inclusion of any chemicals in the process. What about clothing? Let's say you find this sweet shirt on sale from your favorite store. You've been waiting to purchase it for months, and now it's finally 50% off. What about that?

If you've never really paid much attention, you'll probably find two separate pieces of information contained on the tag or tags. One side will include the material, the country of origin, and who made it. The other side of the tag will include how to care for the piece of clothing, can it be washed or does it go to the dry cleaners, etc. Why bother with this information at all? There are two laws established by the Federal Trade Commission that require them to be present on the tags. One is called the Textile and Wool Act, and the other is The Care Labeling Rule. That's it, that's all you need to know about the apparel you sport around town because the government has deemed it so.

Shouldn't we stop for a minute and question this? Clothes are no longer a simple commodity item assembled together on Grandma's loom down the street and shipped over to the local general store. It's a complex network and money making machine that generates that perfectly fitting t-shirt or fashionably colored pair of tennis shoes you sport on the court. If you haven't read the article on this site about tennis shoes, stop what you're doing and scroll down. Read that, then pick up here. I'm still talking about the same problem, but I want to find a better solution.

This stuff is important. We as consumers need to know how the sausage is made, both figuratively and literally. It's abundantly clear that we can't rely on laws and regulations to have our best interest in mind. Our system is built on capitalism, supply and demand, profits and earnings. Ethics is often an afterthought or can often be bought for the right price. We as citizens have to remain watchful and vigilant with how we consume. People are paid large amounts of money to make products seem as appealing to us as possible. It's a game of disassociation. Pig is pork, cow is beef, poultry is chicken. It's uncomfortable to think about it otherwise, so industries have worked tirelessly to remove that discomfort and open your wallets as wide as possible. The same concept is occurring with apparel.

Shouldn't we know immediately that our favorite pair of underwear may have been assembled by a five year old forced to work in horrible conditions? Why is it not required to identify exactly how any piece of clothing arrives in your hands? How about an application on your phone that scans a bar code right on that new fancy shirt? Boom. Access to a database that fully informs you of all the steps required to produce and distribute anything and everything you purchase. Sure these companies may be doing things legally, but clearly the current regulations are morally questionable. It's up to us to remain informed and hold businesses accountable for their actions. I believe we need to overhaul the information provided to us at point of sale. I think this would greatly influence how we shop and ultimately how goods are manufactured and sold.

https://legalbeagle.com/6082830-laws-clothing-label-requirements.html

Purchase Power

I bought a pair of tennis shoes recently that I've been exceptionally excited about. They look cool, not exactly mainstream yet, and have a big label that says Swiss engineered on the side of them. As a consumer, I made an assumption that a big label such as 'Swiss engineered' actually means the shoes were made in Switzerland where first-world wages, laws and regulations are applicable. It wasn't until I was meticulously cleaning them that I saw the inside label which stated...any guesses? You probably got it right. 'Made in Vietnam.'

At this point, I still gave the company the benefit of the doubt. I thought to myself, 'maybe working conditions in Vietnam aren't that bad. Maybe what I've heard in the news about excessive labor in various countries isn't as bad or as widespread as one might think.' Afterward, I found myself becoming more educated about the chain of delivery on exactly how so many well-known brands arrive in our closets. I knew going into the process that I could end up only wearing potato sacks, but I wanted to know. I had to scratch the itch.

The discoveries made can be summarized with this thought, 'human behavior, especially in a capitalistic context, will stabilize along the barriers put in place.' What do I mean by this? In the case of tennis shoes and their production chains, companies are playing by the rules. Big box companies aren't exactly going around in ships, picking up workers from undeveloped soils, throwing them in chains, and forcing them to sew clothing. Not at all. If put in the hands of a talented marketing agent, you would read something like, 'we're providing safe and clean working opportunities in communities and paying wages that are aligned with businesses in those areas.' Sounds straight forward right? Even noble?

The argument falls apart when you break down the pieces that make the whole. In an analysis published on choice.com, a pair of tennis shoes costing $180 in stores has a shocking intrinsic labor value when made in Indonesia. Any guesses? Maybe it's half the cost. No, that's too much. Maybe a third? That seems right. It takes a lot of effort to get these shoes shipped, etc. No. Guess again. It's $3.80 per pair of shoes, or 2% of the cost of a pair of shoes you and I will gladly pay for and slap on our feet for our daily treadmill lap in the gym. What are some of the other pieces of the pie? I'm glad you asked, $39 goes to the brand while $69 goes to the retailer. That's 22% and 38% respectively.

At what point do we inject ethics into the capitalistic algorithm? Why is it enough to stop at the lowest common denominator? If a minimum wage is in place, we might as well pay that. It's the law and it'll make our shareholders happy back in the states. Why does it stop there? What would international business look like if we changed the profitability equation stated above to make the production value more balanced with the brand and the retailer? How amazing would it be for a company like Nike or Adidas or Apple to be able to say, we pay our employees 4x the amount they would normally make in their regions. For every pair of shoes we sell, we're helping feed a family, elevate a baseline, provide education for a community. Will there every be policies like these in place?

I think it's time we ask our businesses these hard questions. I think if our dollar is our vote in many of these situations, we use it to go towards something that actually benefits humanity rather than pad the pockets of the elite. I personally would much rather wear a brand that symbolizes hope and benefit rather than oppression, pain, suffering, or idolization. I've left a few links of some sources that provoked many of these thoughts. Maybe your conclusions will be similar to mine, and maybe we can all work together to work towards true change

https://www.fastcompany.com/90279693/did-a-slave-make-your-sneakers-the-answer-is-probably

https://goodonyou.eco/9-ethical-sneaker-brands/

https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/diet-and-fitness/sportswear-and-shoes/articles/shoe-factory-working-conditions

Shelter-The Sound of Architecture

According to Merriam Webster, architecture is defined as: the art or science of building; specifically the art or practice of designing and building structures and especially habitable ones.  Shelter is defined as: something that covers or affords protection. There is an important distinction between the two.  A piece of architecture provides shelter, but a basic structure is not necessarily a piece of architecture.

Consider the comparison of sound to music.  Do we as a society think of every sound or stream of sounds musical?  The answer is clearly no, but why is that? There are many reasons, but intuitively we could probably all agree that music is something with intention, purpose, creativity, and expresses something more than just the chord structure used to create the sounds.  Music can express love, anger, evoke memories, provide spiritual praise, and a host of many other experiences.

Similarly, buildings have the same capacity as sound relative to the human experience.  At its basic level, a building can provide shelter from the elements. At its greatest, a building can create layers of history, culture, expression, and places of stored memories.  Why is there a spectrum between the two conditions?

Going back to the music analogy, in many instances, a simple sound is all that is required for certain situations.  Think on the last time you were driving through a school zone. Most likely, there was a police officer directing traffic using a whistle.  Almost anyone would recognize a sound of a whistle and what it signifies in this instance. We know to stop, pay attention and watch for direction.  Would it be as effective if what you heard was the melody of ‘Give me Shelter’, even if we tried to make it customary? Most likely not. There is an appropriateness to sound that we allocate to situations.

A building is built because there is a need or a function that it must satisfy.  Primitive structures began as basic means to protect our ancestors from the weather and climatic conditions.  In current society, we have a vast range of ‘needs’ that we use buildings to serve. Beyond functionality, we decide as a culture how much thought and creativity each building deserves.  It’s within this spectrum, between a building serving as pure function and a building or structure embodying the human spirit, that architecture arises.

The time required to think through the construction of a building has cost, the material used to make the building has cost, and the effort to put the building together has cost.  Ultimately, through the laws of supply and demand, we decide what types of buildings will be produced, how needs will be met, and for whom. When we purchase a home built in a certain style with specific materials in particular areas, when we live in specific types of apartment buildings and condos, when we elect politicians who implement government spending, we are deciding what we are willing to accept.  Our purchasing power is our silent vote for the world we are creating. When we look around in the American built environment, are everyone’s basic needs being met, and when they are being met, are they as good as they could be?

Sources:  Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/

What Do Architects Think About

What do architects think about?  In short, we think about design. What is design?  According to Oxford English Dictionary, design is: the art or action of conceiving of and producing a plan or drawing of something before it is made.  To break it down further, let’s think about the ‘art’ of that definition. When something is artful, it’s thought of as imaginative and creative. It embodies something that satisfies a human condition beyond basic needs.  Take the sistine chapel ceiling for instance. The ceiling could have been left as a nice beige color and served its function just fine. However, no one would travel around the world for centuries to see a beige ceiling, but they have done so for the work of Michelangelo.  Architects think about function first, then attempt to elevate a design to something beyond basic needs and into the realm of art.

Let’s open that thought up a little further and review some thoughts first presented by Abraham Maslow in his paper, ‘A Theory of Human Motivation.’  Maslow divided human tendencies into a basic pyramid of motivators. At the base, we find basic survival needs, one tier up from there we see psychological needs, and at the top we find self fulfillment and transcendence.  While Maslow’s pyramid is used in the field of psychology, it lends itself well as an architectural metric and can aid in understanding the thought processes architects go through when designing a piece of architecture.

At base level, an architectural design must satisfy its functional purposes.  Does it stand up against natural forces? Does it protect inhabitants from weather and climate and does it do so efficiently? Does it fit the appropriate number of people or objects?  Once these criteria are satisfied, does the design include elements that represent the owner’s intended social/psychological views, i.e. is the design big and bold, or small and muted, clad in gold, or weathered wood.  Lastly, does the design include true creativity that elevates it into the realm of art?

Relative to architecture, we might label transcendence as the ‘it’ factor.  The reasons for designs being well received and popularized aren’t always clear.  If they were, anyone could do it. Take the iphone for instance. Smart phones had been around for a while before the iphone release.  Even when the iphone was released, there were competing phones with similar properties fighting for their market share. The iphone solved several functional issues for certain.  However there was something about the feel of the phone, the look of it, the weight, the materials, all of those ingredients which made it such a success. It would be challenging to identify an ‘it’ factor for why it was so revolutionary.  

Architects review the design criteria that they’re given and work towards creative solutions that elevate the end result to its maximum potential.  Unlike actual product design, such as the iphone, architects work directly for individual clients. Architecture as a profession is a service industry.  Architects work to provide the best end product, relative to the input and desires offered by their clients. The end result should satisfy the goals the client wishes to achieve with their new building.  These goals may or may not be for the design to achieve something that has the ‘it’ factor.

Harkening back to the article ‘Shelter-The Sound of Architecture,’ two questions were asked:  ‘when we look around in the American built environment, are everyone’s basic needs being met, and when they are being met, are they as good as they could be?’  

The client base/public ultimately set the standard for what is acceptable in our built environment here in the United States.  Governments and developers will continue to build buildings that will sell and meet current demands. According to the EIA, 39% of the total U.S. energy consumption in 2017 was consumed by the residential and commercial sectors.  According to the EPA, the average American spends 90% of their time indoors. These statistics strongly endorse a close examination of the two questions presented. For instance, If buildings are using 39% of energy consumption, are basic needs truly being satisfied especially when considering the abundant passive and active energy technologies available to us?  If we are spending 90% of our time indoors, shouldn’t the quality of those spaces be at maximum potential?

Sources:

EIA: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=86&t=1

EPA: https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/chapter/air/indoorair.cfm

Maslow, A.H., A Theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review, 1943: 50, 370-396