The big idea is dead. Architectural projects are too complex to be facilitated by one overarching concept, as life is too complicated to be solved by one thing. In fact, our design environment is too complex to successfully implement one unifying thing as a single solution to every aspect of a project. Change design challenges us to “simplify complexity,” when, in effect, it should challenge us to “simplify complication” because complexity, after all, is what we strive for. Beauty = Complexity - Complication.

IDEAS

Ideas are nebulous and all inclusive, and are shaped by our personal experiences and knowledge of the world. They are not limited to the profession of architecture, and can be viral in their infiltration and propagation. As designers we welcome insights and inspirations from all facets of our world.

ATTITUDE

Attitude by definition is a disposition relative to directed or undirected thought. Attitudes can be constructed by our thoughts, beliefs and feelings about the world. We both consciously or subconsciously have a certain attitude towards design or specific project, and consequently will filter the infinite amount of ideas set before us to support or coincide with the way we think about the world, or to bring to light ways we think the world or project should be thought about. Our attitude colors the lens through which we approach design, and on any one project is an amalgam of the attitudes of others. We should assume that our attitudes would lend themselves to the betterment of our world, with an agenda that is fundamentally positive. By identifying and forming an attitude relative to the project, we can situate ourselves and our teams to best answer questions, solve problems, and set parameters as the project is engaged.

ENGINE

An engine is a driver. It takes potential energy through one end, and converts it to kinetic energy on the other. It is fundamentally a catalyst of change and production. In the same way, so does the conceptual engine function. While design projects can be comprised of an infinite amount of components, we can ultimately trace those components back to three originating engines of change: the aesthetic, the logistical, and the situational. While each engine covers a broad scope, they can be broken down to address and propel architectural thought in the following, more specific sub-categories:

> Aesthetic
—– Compositional
—– Operational
—– Geometrical
—– Material
—– Representational
—– Graphical
> Logistic
—– Metrical
—– Programmatical
—– Functional
> Situational
—– Temporal
—– Theoretical
—– Ecological
—– Canonical
—– Socio-Cultural

While these categories are intended merely to be guidelines for architectural pursuit/experimentation within a conceptual project, they are by no means an end all, be all - simply a means to structure a way of seeing a project to fruition while acknowledging all of these components. Using these as benchmarks, we can begin to identify weaknesses (intentional or unintentional) within the concept. We may find that one or more of the engines begin to be preferenced based on our attitude, but each will always be running parallel in their own strands of thought, no less important.

(re) ORGANIZATION

After we have identified specific strands of thought, and how our attitude can shape our approach to the project via the three engines, we must then identify ways in which we can begin to structure and organize the information. Diagramming becomes an essential means by which we can begin to realize the framework on which we base the concept. Essentially, the focus is constructing and producing strategies to translate captured “strand-related” data into something graphical or three-dimensional. It is from this point we can begin to construct an argument in a language specific to our discipline.

For instance, our attitude may inform what kind of structures we extract or pursue – (hierarchical vs. networked, striated vs. smooth, etc.) We may look outside of our domain for clues and tangents of how information is structured elsewhere (nature, physics, chemistry, etc.) and can be applied to our project. In identifying and extracting the information, we may also find that we begin to reorganize and impose new structures on the data to align it with our attitude of the project. We are not simply adding or subtracting but again, extracting what’s there, and reorganizing it for different affect and perception.

TOOLING

Once, we have organized the data and developed strategies for its implementation relative to the project, we then must realize it conceptually using techniques specific to our design discipline. Our specific tools of materializing concepts range from drawing techniques to three dimensional modeling. These again, are not limiting, but a set of tools that are most commonly used today in practice. We individually may have developed specific techniques relative to these categories, but eventually those techniques have to resolve themselves to something that produces usable information specific to our profession.

EXPERIENCE

Having filtered ideas, catalyzed them, reorganized and then realized them into a product, the end result produces the implication of intended experience. As projects move to subsequent phases, that intention may or may not be eroded by pragmatics or reactions, but the conceptual notion remains its purest at the project’s outset. That we evaluate that experience, and choose as to whether or not we internalize it as a reconsideration of our attitude before returning it back to the field of ideas to be cycled through a new conceptual process…