C hapter 3 the Design Context
56
goes through various legal and community approval processes that
are necessary to enable a project to go forward. Many feasibility
studies are also naturally made at the time, since the high costs of
any building generally necessitate that the costs be amortized over
a long period of years. The development team typically will then
engage an architectural firm to assemble a multidisciplinary project
team to do the design and engineering work. This same team typically then facilitates making a contract with a construction firm to
actually construct the building. Though many building components are bought as “products” (e.g., windows or air-handling
units) and are simply installed by the contractor, a vast portion of
the act of constructing a building is still idiosyncratic and occurs
on site—for example, structural steel frames typically go up piece
by piece. The design and construction team assembled to do a
project might or might not ever work together again on future
projects. In some cases the development team may retain ownership of the new building, but it is often the case that the development team sells it to other buyers. Whereas many exceptions can
be identified, such as clients wanting “signature” buildings for one
reason or another, it remains generally true that this prototypical
process unfortunately does not naturally encourage exploration or
risk taking with new designs—much less research that leads to a
new design—that might use unproven materials, even if they
might prove ultimately beneficial.
In situations where the building is ultimately to be owned and
operated by the same group that develops it, prospects for innovation improve. Some ownership groups might well be interested in
material innovations that have particular long-term economic benefits that are not easy for a private developer to justify, particularly
in the area of energy sustainability. The employment of some new
approach or new material might also enhance the image of a
company in a positive way and thus increase the market appeal of
its products and hence the company’s ultimate revenue stream.
Apple Computer stores in the United States, for example, have
successfully promoted a particular kind of high-tech lifestyle image
that is achieved via innovations in design and material choice—an
image that ultimately improves the company’s bottom line. Other
examples include many stores that sell sophisticated sporting
equipment, racing bicycles, fashion clothing, or other high-end
goods. These are “high-value” buildings where high-end design is
considered worth paying for. It is here that most interesting and
innovative material explorations in architecture occur. The fact that
a line of buildings is being built also helps defray additional design
56
goes through various legal and community approval processes that
are necessary to enable a project to go forward. Many feasibility
studies are also naturally made at the time, since the high costs of
any building generally necessitate that the costs be amortized over
a long period of years. The development team typically will then
engage an architectural firm to assemble a multidisciplinary project
team to do the design and engineering work. This same team typically then facilitates making a contract with a construction firm to
actually construct the building. Though many building components are bought as “products” (e.g., windows or air-handling
units) and are simply installed by the contractor, a vast portion of
the act of constructing a building is still idiosyncratic and occurs
on site—for example, structural steel frames typically go up piece
by piece. The design and construction team assembled to do a
project might or might not ever work together again on future
projects. In some cases the development team may retain ownership of the new building, but it is often the case that the development team sells it to other buyers. Whereas many exceptions can
be identified, such as clients wanting “signature” buildings for one
reason or another, it remains generally true that this prototypical
process unfortunately does not naturally encourage exploration or
risk taking with new designs—much less research that leads to a
new design—that might use unproven materials, even if they
might prove ultimately beneficial.
In situations where the building is ultimately to be owned and
operated by the same group that develops it, prospects for innovation improve. Some ownership groups might well be interested in
material innovations that have particular long-term economic benefits that are not easy for a private developer to justify, particularly
in the area of energy sustainability. The employment of some new
approach or new material might also enhance the image of a
company in a positive way and thus increase the market appeal of
its products and hence the company’s ultimate revenue stream.
Apple Computer stores in the United States, for example, have
successfully promoted a particular kind of high-tech lifestyle image
that is achieved via innovations in design and material choice—an
image that ultimately improves the company’s bottom line. Other
examples include many stores that sell sophisticated sporting
equipment, racing bicycles, fashion clothing, or other high-end
goods. These are “high-value” buildings where high-end design is
considered worth paying for. It is here that most interesting and
innovative material explorations in architecture occur. The fact that
a line of buildings is being built also helps defray additional design