Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
2 ISSUES OF QUALITY OF DESIGN IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS The Federal Design Improvement Program, begun in 1972 under the sponsor- ship of the National Endowment for the Arts, "aspired to improve the quality of design throughout the federal government at scales ranging from the redesign of federal Publications to the programming of multimillion-dollar federal facilities." , ~ ~ One part of the program was the Federal Architecture Project, Welch over the course of the subsequent five years conducted a historical study of federal architecture, reviewed and proposed revision or the federal governments design procurement procedures, and lain the groundwork for the 1976 Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act, the first major public buildings legislation since 1949. a reflection of federal agencies' continuing concern we th in the Federal Architecture Project, and these agencies' the importance of their building programs for the nation's meet. . . THE SCALE AND CONSEQUENCE OF DESIGN ACTIVITY IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS This study is in a sense ~ ~ issues raised recognition of built environ Federal government construction-related spending in 1986 was approxi- mately $48 billion (Department of Commerce, 19879. Roughly $13.4 billion of this amount was spent for construction or major reconstruction of facili- ties owned by the federal government.7 The value of new federal buildings put in place was approximately $4.5 billion. Federal construction is very big business, accounting for about one-eighth of all construction spending in the United States. 6 Michael John Pittas, Director, Design Arts Program, National Endow- ment for the Arts, 1978-1984. 7 See Appendix A. The balance of construction-related expenditure was for facilities such as highways or housing that are owned by state or local governments or non-governmental interests. 3
The importance of federal architecture is greater than even these substantial figures suggest "The Government...enjoys in its building opera- tions a tremendous opportunity for good in the judgment of all who regard architecture as one of the important factors of the higher civilization.~88 Whether or not the federal government has taken full and proper advantage of this opportunity in recent decades is a matter of debate. The committee noted that the Federal Architecture Project and subsequent programs of the National Endowment for the Arts--as well as budget set-asides for purchase of art--have enhanced the concern for design excellence within federal building programs, but that the subjective values reflected in building design assure that debate will continue. The committee felt that recommendations may be made for improving the government's ability to achieve higher quality of design without becoming embroiled in questions of how to measure explicitly the level of current quality. Buildings are built to serve the particular purposes of the buildings' owners and users. These purposes are often diverse, sometimes not clearly defined, and may spring from sources throughout the society of which build- er, owner, and user are part. As one of the documents from the Federal Architecture Project stated, Buildings and landscapes express subjective values. Parti- cularly in its public works--its architecture and land planning--a society projects its views of the world and of the good life. From the beginning of the American nation such design choices have embodied many forces, political and economic as well as cultural. Government building, then, must be understood in the context of the American experience, which has been encompassed in the dimensions of American space. (Craig et al., 1972) A building's designer seeks to reflect purposes and values in the physical elements of the building. In the end it is the service these physical elements provide--service in support of the building's users and neighbors--that will become the basis for judging whether a building's design is "good." That judgment will inevitably depend on the outcome of many stages in the building process: how well the designer comprehended the building's purposes, how this comprehension was reflected in drawings and written specifications that presented the design to builders, how these builders responded to the designer's guidance and the uncertainties of construction procedure, how the owners and users of the finished building operate and maintain the building. The judgment will also depend frequently on the opinions of the individual or group making the judgment. 8 Secretary of the Treasury, Annual Report on the State of the Finances, 1912. 4
DESIGN QUALITY AND THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS According to the dictionary, Quality means "a degree of excellence...su- periority in kind." (Mish, ea., 1985) For many people, "quality" design means "good" design, and "design quality" is a value-laden term that de- pends--as the preceding paragraph outlines--on the participation of many people. The committee found it impossible to devise a concise and complete definition of design quality that would be likely to find general acceptance within the building professions. In broad terms, "design quality'' en- courages buildings whose characteristics create an environment where the occupant or user can accomplish his purpose effectively, efficiently, and comfortably. Implied in this working definition are factors of economics, social and psychological characteristics of users, flexibility to accommo- date changes in users and uses, aesthetics, community standards of safety and health, building technology, environmental concerns, and the tradeoffs among such factors that must be made in the process that results ultimately In a building in use. Figure 1 illustrates the building process and indicates schematically the distribution of involvement of parties to the process. The initial owner may be building for his or her own use or acting as a developer who will sell the finished building to others. The designer, often a team of professions operating through one or a group of firms, works with the owner to understand the building's intended purposes and the constraints of budget and site that influence how those purposes will be realized. The designer develops a functional program (formally or informally) and then a set of drawings and written specifications that communicate the building's design to the potential builders who may construct the building. To communicate more effectively with the owner, the designer may also prepare scale models and artist's renderings of how the finished building is expected to look. Up to this point in the process, the quality of the building's design depends primarily on the designer's ability to understand the owner's needs and desires, and to respond to those needs and desires in developing the building's design. The roles and responsibilities of the owner and designer, working with one another within the design development process, are complex and often depend on the personalities of the individuals in- volved. Selecting a designer who recognizes the needs of the owner and is adept at making the tradeoffs among conflicting needs and constraints is an important decision that can have significant impact on quality of design. In contrast to practices in private construction, the designer of a government building generally has little part in making the decision to select a builder. The builder, typically a complex team of contractors and sub-contractors, responds to the designer's drawings and specifications in deciding how to go about producing the building, often without substan- tial recourse to the design personnel. The clarity and accuracy of the drawings and specifications are crucial to the builder's delivery of a finished facility that is within budget and an effective realization of the design. Thus, before the building is constructed and during 5
FIGURE 1 Generic Stages and Responsibilities in the Building Process Building Process Responsible Parties ~- . Building's Intended Purposes / Buildir g Program Design Drawings and Specifications _ \l! . . 1 Constructed Facility Building in Use . ~ User/Occupant Achievement of Purpose Owner* Designer Builder User *Note: Owner at use may differ from user and from owner at design initiation. 6
construction, the quality of these drawings and specifications directly affects the quality of the finished product. During the construction process, the designer (and the owner) may give guidance to the builder or make design changes. Together, the builder, designer, and owner respond to changes in conditions such as user require- ments, availability of materials, labor costs, discoveries of unsuspected environmental conditions, or changes in the financial markets. The quality of the finished constructed facility is influenced by only or all of these factors, as well as by the builder's initial ability to comprehend and respond effectively to the design reflected in the drawings and specifica- tions. It is often difficult to distinguish between the influences of designer or builder when the quality of design of the finished facility is assessed. The operation and maintenance of a building in use will influence significantly how well the constructed facility performs to serve the purposes of the owner or occupants of the facility. Quite often a build- ing's purpose or use will change from what was originally intended. During the life of the building, which may span 50 or more years, the occupants and their uses of the building may change several times. Advances in technology, changes in community standards, availability of alternate accommodations, and changes in taste may also influence the owner's and occupant's assessment of a building's quality. The judged quality of design, with regard to the building in use, may thereby change as well. CHALLENGES IN ACHIEVING QUALITY OF DESIGN IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS While quality of design is achieved progressively at all stages through- out the design development process, the committee focused its attention on the characteristics of owner and designer that are important early in the process: · The owner's understanding of his or her purposes for building and ability to communicate those purposes to the designer ~ The designer's recognition of the purposes of the owner and the user, and his foresight and ability to make effective tradeoffs among conflicting purposes and constraints in conceiving a design that can be realized · The designer's skill in communicating the design to the builder through drawings and specifications and assuring that the design is effec- tively realized Even though the building's purpose or use may change, the owner and user of a federal building generally remain the same throughout the life of the building. The federal agencies might then be expected to have two particular advantages that can enhance quality of design: a good under- standing of users' needs the building is to serve, and experience in select- ing and communicating to designers who can deliver high quality design. 7
However, the committee observed that the size of government agencies, the diversity of missions within and among agencies, and the variations of conditions from one geographic region to another make it difficult for federal agencies to realize these potential advantages. On the other hand, the continuity of federal agencies' building programs gives them an opportunity to assess design quality throughout a building's life. Practi- cally speaking, this should enable agencies to learn lessons that can be used to improve the quality of design of subsequent buildings. In any case, the committee concluded that federal agencies can achieve improved quality of design by strengthening their ability to assess and complicate effectively their program requirements and design objectives. The committee observed that federal agencies' buildings must respond to a broad range of symbolic requirements as well as the scrutiny of the Congress and the public. The judgment of quality in federal building design frequently involves a much larger and more diverse set of opinions than might be encountered in the private sector. The committee also ob- served that this scrutiny may be more sharply focused on building costs and budgets than upon aesthetics or performance, an emphasis that is some- times argued to distort the federal design development process in ways that adversely influence design quality. Finally, the committee observed that the designer's role in balancing the many functional, aesthetic, economic, and other factors that influence a building's design is especially important to the final quality of design. The committee concluded therefore that federal agencies can achieve improved quality of design by selecting designers who are skilled at translating program requirements and design objectives into buildable designs that meet realistic budgets.9 A WORKSHOP ON QUALITY OF DESIGN To explore these conclusions further, the committee organized a workshop to involve a larger number of participants in the discussion of how federal agencies can improve the quality of design of their buildings. The work- shop's agenda and participants are presented in Appendix B. The workshop participants divided themselves into five working groups (Appendix C) to discuss in detail areas where improvements might be made in federal agency practices: pre-design programming and planning, the A/E selection process, agency and A/E participation during the design and construction process, design evaluation, and building program management. Chapter 3 summarizes the principal findings and conclusions of the workshop discussions. 9The committee, and subsequently workshop participants, felt there is a need for greater attention by schools of architecture and engineering to the specific issues of design in the public sector. Such attention over the longer term will yield a cadre of design professionals who are more aware of the meaning and need for quality in federal buildings, and better prepared to provide quality design. 8
