Six kinds of design

I was interested to read the paper "A Short, Grandiose Theory of Design" published in 1987 by the late designer and design educator Jay Doblin. In the paper he identifies six kinds of design that result from a matrix based on two properties of design (performance and appearance) and three levels of complexity (products, unisystems and multisystems).

Properties
In the paper, Doblin demonstrates that some items are designed purely for performance (crow bars or paper clips, are his examples) or purely for appearance (Christmas ornaments or trophies), while most items fall somewhere on the continuum between these polar opposites. As a side note, Doblin observes that, once in the hands of customers, these properties might be inverted; his example is the Porsche that is designed more for performance, but is used for appearance, if it is driven only on city streets.

Complexity
The three levels of complexity Doblin describes conform to the level of interaction a designed item has with other designed items. A products is a relatively distinct physical item that has been designed to address a distinct need or set of needs. A unisystem is a coordinated set of products, used systematically to serve a need. Unisystems can include social structures and interactions and are not necessarily identifiable as individual products. A kitchen and a factory are two examples given. Doblin finally identifies multisystems as "sets of competing unisystems," which might include a particular market class or sector of an industry. The office equipment market is an example given, where many firms (unisystems) compete with one another.

Matrix
The resulting matrix of design has six cells which can be summarized as follows:

1. Performance Product Design -- is the traditional purview of engineering designers, who develop products with relatively clear and quantitative design requirements.
2. Appearance Product Design -- is the traditional purview of "designers" or stylists.
3. Performance Unisystems Design -- is the design of a system composed of individual products working together to perform a defined task or function. Examples can range from "compact kitchens to NASA space missions."
4. Appearance Unisystems Design -- is, in essence, a performance unisystem, where the principal desired function is "to deliver a satisfying experience." Disneyland or a world's fair are two examples given.
5. Performance Multisystems Design and
6. Appearance Multisystems Design -- in Doblin's view are similar enough to be described together, as they are both sets of unisystems competing against one another. Two be successful, either multisystem design would involve consideration of an enormous number of interactions and correspondences between the unisystems that constitute them, and involve whole supporting unisystems of "catalogs, brochures, signing, nomenclature, advertising, packaging," etc.

The key point is that each of these six kinds of design requires a different approach and a different kind of designer. Skill at one particular kind of design in no way indicates likely success in another category.

Non-matter as the essence of things

Thirty spokes meet in the hub,
But the empty space between them is the essence of the wheel.

Pots are formed from clay,
But the empty space within it is the essence of the pot.

Walls with windows and doors form a house,
But the empty space within it is the essence of the house.


Lao-Tse, quoted in Johannes Itten's Design and Form.

Stuck in the Past

As someone who is interested in phenomenology, especially as it applies to architectural and urban design, I was recently trying to grasp the ideas presented in "Architectural Making: Between a "Space of Experience" and a "Horizon of Expectations"" recently published by Iris Aravot, an Israeli architecture and planning scholar.

As the title of the paper suggests, the idea it presents relates to the way the work of an architectural designer occupies the middle ground between the "space of experience," which consists of (1) the scope of the architectural problem to be solved, (2) the architect's professional knowledge and training, and (3) his or her personal experience, and the "horizon of expectations," which, if I understand it correctly, represents the range of architectural solutions that is considered "acceptable" to the architect personally and to the larger society. In past times, say through most of the 18th century, the "horizon of expectations" was pretty clearly defined, and usually made reference to classical forms and elements. But that has changed in more recent times, opening up a new world of possibilities and difficulties.

I am sure I have still not grasped all of what Ms. Aravot is trying to say in her paper, but I was taken by one statement that I think points out a danger of the neo-classicism that is promoted by a number of architectural organizations that have cropped up over the past decade or so, as well as the tendency of preservation societies in older cities. The statement is: "When all is already contained in experience, and the future is rendered in the image of the past, creativity stops. There is no space for creativity, if a wedge is not inserted between the "space of experience" and the "horizon of expectations.""

It can be comforting to fall back on familiar forms and familiar symbols, but we no longer live in an age seeking to represent itself as a rebirth of Greek democracy or Roman empire. There should be no expectation that our surroundings must repeat the architectural models of those past ages. The trick is still, as it has been since the arrival of "modern" architecture, to define the "horizon of expectations" in a way that allows creativity while pointing towards new forms that are not jarringly novel, but instead serve to complement our surroundings and help our cities grow comfortably into the future.

Deyan Sudjic Quotes

I was recently going through some articles I had saved, and came across an op-ed piece that Deyan Sudjic, architectural writer and director of the Design Museum in the UK, had published in the Guardian newspaper on March 8,2008. The op-ed piece was about the continuing movement of the world's population to cities, but I was most struck by two tangential statements Sudjic made about the nature of cities and those who govern them:

"A city is an a la carte menu. That is what makes it different from a village, which has little room for tolerance or difference. And a great city is one in which as many people as possible can make the widest choices from its menu."

"Politicians love cranes; they need solutions within the time frames of elections and cranes deliver them. But there are only a limited number of problems that are susceptible to this kind of time scale."

The last stimulus package: 1992

After having the book in my possession for almost 8 years, I finally got around to reading The Future Once Happened Here, Fred Siegel's 1997 survey of social service politics and the fates of NYC, D.C., and LA since the New Deal. Near the end of the book I came across the following passages relating to the federal stimulus package that was contemplated as a means of extracting us from the last major economic recession:

"A jubilant [Mayor David] Dinkins, his own 1993 reelection possibilities seemingly enhanced by Clinton's 1992 victory, waited less than a half day after the election before sending off a twenty-page wish list to the guy going to the White House. He asked for help with everything from infrastructure to the arts...Clinton was never able to give New York much. The president's proposed $19.5 billion stimulus program, based largely on the U.S. Conference of Mayors' 'ready to go' construction and infrastructure projects, was soundly defeated even though the Democrats controlled both houses of congress."

This bit of history gave me some pause. I hope it is not a preview of the fate of the much discussed stimulus package of 2009.