You Can Do Better

[Chris Ostlind]

A good friend of mine, who is an architect here in Salt Lake, recently posted this article to his Facebook page. I was so moved by the content of the piece that I wanted to share it with others. While the article is written to architects, I believe it is a universal comment to us all. Please read and take the time to make a few comments here as to the impact it may create within you.

http://www.architectmagazine.com/architects/you-can-do-better.aspx

[michigangeorge]

Good thoughts, but they do not belong here in the design section Chris.

[David G]

Good thoughts, but they do not belong here in the design section Chris.

Ahhh... but they do. This is about one of the ongoing dialectics of design. You might call it Excellence vs. Accessibility.

It's no different in boats than in human living structures. One example -- while many of us would relish the opportunity to own and sail one of the classics of the golden age of yacht design... say... Dorade. In fact, what I can afford to own are some smaller boats. One of those boats is a Puddle Duck Racer. Yes, it looks like someone stuck a stick in a packing crate. But, it sails. Remarkably well, in fact. Most importantly... it gets me out on the water! And... far more often than a larger, fancier boat would.

So... do we want boat designers to limit themselves - through licensing, cultural mores, and more - only to boats that can be afforded by the top 5% of the income earners? Or... would we prefer to see boat designers and naval architects also designing boats of moderate cost? Or even of extremely low cost?

My preference would be for a wide range of designs to be available - for all budgets. I applaud those who encourage this. WB magazine, I think, does a good job of balancing the whole spectrum. We're lucky to have (or have had) such designers such as Shorty Routh, Michael Storer, John Welsford, Mark Bowdidge, Graham Byrnes, Jim Michalak, Ross Lillistone, Gavin Atkin, Weston Farmer, Phil Bolger, John & William Atkin, Ian Oughtred, George Calkins, Sam Devlin, Harry Bryan, Paul Gartside, and others. All of them catered to the more accessible end of the spectrum.

I wouldn't say the issue is as pronounced in boat design as it is in home and office design... but it still is an issue. And it's an issue that bears some thought. And it is an issue that comes up from time to time. There's even a certain amount of boat snobbery that surfaces right here on WBF. It behooves us all to remember that it's more important to get people out boating than that they do it in an "approved" boat (right, erster?<G>).

[Daniel Noyes]

That depends weather we are putting a value on quantity or quality, are we looking to simply get warm bodies on the water or is there an interest in teaching and passing down centuries old traditions and knowledge

if it's quantity then sure the more box boats the better...
if were looking for quality (of craft, skil, committment etc...) then a few box boats may be ok for entry level accessibility but rapid advancement to higher quality (not necessarily more expensive) boats should be encouraged

[Simcoe and Muskoka]

Thank you Chris
With all respect
That's the whole point. Here is exactly where this belongs. This applies to every design school. There is experience and knowledge in this forum that finds fault with anyone who attempts to build something that is not exactly the same as what has been designed by the old past masters. Some are stuck in the past and doing things not because it is the best way but because it is the old classic way. Imagine if instead that knowledge and experience was used to design a series of boats that were inexpensive to build by the average wood worker, hobby or handyman using materials that were readily available and might last 10 to 15 years and then be recyclable. Imagine a nice long boat that would hold a family and be relatively easy to transport, safe and that would attain a reasonable speed by oar, paddle, wind or electric power or maybe all these options in one boat. Some might start to mass produce them at a reasonable price . It would put families outdoors on the water in environmentally friendly boats. The people coming forward with these ideas would not be worried about the lack of the use of copper rivets and real wood and the aesthetics of epoxy or grain of oak vs apple wood. Imagine if they would take the best features of the old designers and combine them with all the new methods and materials and discard the rest. You want to save the trees and fish. Imagine if people came out of the city on weekends into the forests and onto the water. Once they experience it and can actually use it themselves and are stakeholders they will help you save it. CAD, new materials, the best schools, brilliant new designers young eager craftsmen. We could design a wooden boat that millions of people could build , afford and use. Imagine

[Ian McColgin]

What belongs in every design school is clarity of thought. Teasing meaning out of murky pseudo-philosophizing in a language other than English is a profound challenge. Ignoring the incorrect use of the past participle, just what does the following sentence mean?

“However, if you have woken up and realized that the internal monologue and obsession with policing the boundary of “big A” licensed Architecture means that architects could lose the thread of the most important movement in history, the movement to redesign the world and everything we do to sustainably meet the needs of the 4.5 billion children who will be born before midcentury, then do something about it.”

He might be noting that:
Architecture taken in the broadest sense designing spaces in which people do their people thing; and
Most of the world is very poor (well he left that bit out but it matters if we wonder how architects are to make a living here and is relevant to the next point); then
The areas of most explosive growth in population, industrialization, pollution, and density are the places where really creative architects could do our race the most good.

Except no one’s buying so might as well make a spire in Dubai.

A better, far longer but at least written in English, way to address the fullness of these problems, from design to the reality of building to the market problems involved to that old ethic we call the workmanship of risk is found in “Wooden Boats” by Michael Ruhlman.

[S B]

What belongs in every design school is clarity of thought. Teasing meaning out of murky pseudo-philosophizing in a language other than English is a profound challenge. Ignoring the incorrect use of the past participle, just what does the following sentence mean?

“However, if you have woken up and realized that the internal monologue and obsession with policing the boundary of “big A” licensed Architecture means that architects could lose the thread of the most important movement in history, the movement to redesign the world and everything we do to sustainably meet the needs of the 4.5 billion children who will be born before midcentury, then do something about it.”

He might be noting that:
Architecture taken in the broadest sense designing spaces in which people do their people thing; and
Most of the world is very poor (well he left that bit out but it matters if we wonder how architects are to make a living here and is relevant to the next point); then
The areas of most explosive growth in population, industrialization, pollution, and density are the places where really creative architects could do our race the most good.

Except no one’s buying so might as well make a spire in Dubai.

A better, far longer but at least written in English, way to address the fullness of these problems, from design to the reality of building to the market problems involved to that old ethic we call the workmanship of risk is found in “Wooden Boats” by Michael Ruhlman.

In layman's terms " I have paid my dues, made my fortune,now I am going to save the world.How dare you question me."

[Ian McColgin]

No S B, I do not reject the struggles of others and from a builder of anything point of view I’ve paid no dues. Hell, I’ve only built one wee dory from scratch, never designed anything complex, have not even mediocre artistic skill, and am so far from rich that I am forced by circumstance, not nobility, to seek the solace of philosophy. What I have is a wide involvement with people who are making the difference.

And so I took the liberty of treating the little essay as a serious work rather than as a rant.

The "inspiration piece" is very poor writing that disguises murky dreaming about a very very difficult goal. Or at least what I think might be the goal, and a worthy one at that. The author might be urging that we bring all that goes into architecture - use of space, human engineering, beauty, efficiency, robust use of material like the radical breakthroughs in concrete, integration with the local environment, sane use of energy, etc etc - to the challenges of global development.

There are two problems besides obscure writing and muddled thinking - this guy’s not Howard Roark and Roark was only a bad fiction.

[Gerarddm]

I can steer you to the works of the late influential David Pye: :The Nature and Art of Workmanship (ISBN 1-871569-76-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1871569761)) and The Nature & Aesthetics of Design (ISBN 0-906969-27-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0906969271)). Well thought out and postulated.

This from Wiki:

One of Pye's most well-known concepts is "the workmanship of risk", by which he means "workmanship using any kind of technique or apparatus, in which the quality of the result is not predetermined, but depends on the judgment, dexterity and care which the maker exercises as he works (The Nature and Art of Workmanship, 20).

Pye proposed that we build things to effect change. Everything occurs within a system of changes and structures and is not divisible from the system in which it operates. Most designed objects are, in his opinion, purely palliative, and very few objects truly enable new activities and behavior. We can walk instead of taking the car but we cannot fly instead of taking a plane. He also points out that design is limited by economy not technique. Technique far outstrips affordability. Because of this all design is a trade off (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade-off) and to that extent a failure. Where that failure is allowed to enter in is an arbitrary result of the process of designing. He points out that much of design proceeds under the assumption that tools can bring us happiness but in his opinion tools can only avoid unhappiness. In thinking that tools can equate to happiness the tools are seen as separating cause and effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality) which are inseparable. This belief is held because design is conceived at a certain level of isolation from outside factors which do not or cannot exist in the world.

[Phil Gibson]

I believe the following passage from the draft of a manuscript I'm writing on retirement and boat-building is relevant to the discussion; wait for it and I'll explain:



"I have considered introducing boat-building as a hobby to my grandchildren. As yet they are too young, but I like the idea because it is a way of becoming relevant to them. All of them – the boys particularly – have shown an eagerness to hammer nails and saw scrap boards: to be creatively involved in something so adult. It is their very nature to grow effortlessly in mind and body, constrained only by the barriers that life puts in their way. By being their teacher, helping them to explore the possibilities, I can help them realize that the wonders of life are understandable. I hope that by showing them how to build something larger than they are, I can encourage them to use all their talents toward a greater purpose than themselves. Computer time can do that as well, and they will get lots of that as they grow. But as mind-expanding as the computer can be, it cannot instil confidence by example or encouragement. It cannot love them like I do.

While I may build boats to satisfy my nostalgia, I had to ask myself what message my grandchildren were receiving in the process. Would I be exalting the past – building an altar to conservatism that, in reality, would limit their horizons? What good would it do to inspire confidence in themselves only to have them aspire to build monuments to a bygone era? How would wooden boat-building skills and motivation equip them to deal with life as it will come at them in digitized forms? Aren’t perceptiveness, innovation and intellectual adaptability the core skills that will be required? In the end I believe that self-confidence is paramount, along with the independence of mind and spirit to experience life on their own terms. They will learn this from accomplishing big things at a young age: things with a visual echo that will resound in their consciousness for a lifetime; things they are unlikely to learn by hanging with their peers at the mall; things that derive from real human emotional connections. In the end, I believe humanism can be taught, but it can’t be learned from a machine."


Mr. Mau is challenging the assumptions of the knowledge elites. What does it matter if somebody sets themself apart by virtue of their technical facility with concrete and steel or with old-fashioned wood? What matters is the search for answers. We will not find them by going forever backwards. We can join in the search by vesting old skills with a new purpose.

[Jay Greer]

I might comment here that, I believe, in the spirit of human creativity, which thankfully, comes in many sizes, shapes and forms of practicality. While I cannot speak for the goals of others, I firmly believe that, that which is woven into the tapestry of our productive existance should of benefit to all mankind. While I acknowledge that I have been blessed with certain talents which are reflected in the arts, I am not so smug as to pass criticism on the passions, talents and beliefs of others so long as they are of benefit to those who are in need. I firmly belive in Thomas Colin Ratsey's favorite quotation from Mathew 12:20 "Quench not the smoking flax!" Which is to say, don't pour cold water on the beliefs of others, especially the young.
Jay

[outofthenorm]

Jay I agree with the sentiment you've expressed, but I would change one thing. I think that "benefit to all mankind" is too lofty a goal for our modest endeavors. I know I would be glad if the things I did turned out to be of lasting benefit to their intended users, and perhaps to anyone watching.

- Norm

[Jay Greer]

All are welcome. I don't discriminate. What little knowledge I have is there to be shared for the asking. By doing so, I often learn something new.
Jay

[jantje]

This thread hits straightly in the middle of of my nerves of dream and reality !

Just told my Wife TODAY...exactly 2,5 hours ago, I'd divorce her...if she would not give in and finally allow me to build a REAL ship..............hey...I'm not joking here...that's a fact!
Trough the last 20 Years I have built a about a 500 scale-models of ALL kind of boats, which I"d like to have and sail.......including things like a Bisquine ( a three-masted over-rigged Luggersailed monster)
...and a couple of classical Herreshoff- designs.

Nice and fancy...wasn"t good enough, classical wasn't historic enough.......until I started """"""wandering around on the Deck"""" and imagining to have to deal those Things in real Life.

OOOPS ! That DID hurt !

Not speaking of how to FINANCE my "dreams"...it was simply a Matter of how to actually DEAL with them....

OK.... winches can take the Arm-power of a larger crew, engines can support in Port-manouvering......as well as sail launching and rope - work.......
But since I'm destined to be a "One-Hand-sailor" I soon felt "Overdone" with the differences between "beauty and practicabillity", Tradition and modern technology.

By time....my scale-models became more and more simple and uglyer...and I felt more and more comfortable with them at the same time. ( "simple " in this case does not imply "carelessly built"......You an still turn the key in the door hatch of a 1:50 model which I make )....but it is simply less "demanding" as a TRUE vessel in Price and handling.

So without actually intending to do so...I have given myself the absolute psychotherapy of reality, when it comes to Practiability. pricing and sailing-concerns.

Right now I am into building an ""Ugly Duckling "" of a "cheap smack "..........which may carry me around the world, once I have built it not in 1: 50 or even 1: 10 scale.....but 1:1.

It won't be a Herreshoff....it will not be pretty, it will not show , that I am a Millionaire, ( because right now I'm living on 200 US $ a Month ..... YES....that is possible in Africa ! )......but that Thing WILL sail....and beat them all......so for ME it's BEAUTYFULL........... the best boat off them all !

It DID take 500 scale models ( some of them beeing displayed in Museums today).....a lot of sailing on different boat and ships, and one of them sinking with the crew drowning, to make me see sence ...
that the value of a boat does not lie in its Price-value or the admiration of other people....but in the way it serves it's purpose.......and "PURPOSE" is a VERY individuall thing !

Am I making sense here ??

Hope so !

Jantje

[Jay Greer]

Absolutely. The hardest thing connected with building a boat is in the starting.
One tip. Build the spars first. They take up less storage room and the hull won't have to sit waiting for them.
Remember Don Quixote? It was Herreshoff's favorite book. Every man is entitled to his own Dulcinea.
Jay

[Duncan Gibbs]

Interesting thread for me as someone with an absolute passion for wooden boats and as a landscape architect and urban designer. I heartily admire the sentiments of Bruce Mau, and I've certainly agreed with his previous writings I've had the pleasure of reading.

One problem with it though: As designers we are the spenders of other people's money where ever the project is, geographically speaking. I think that the practice of boat design and boat building OTOH hasn't quite got the same problems and complexities that trouble the practice of architecture. We cannot easily design 'a unit' that can be reproduced for the benifit of large numbers of people because by doing so we disrupt the very geography we seek to augment and improve.

Think of it like famine relief: You cannot mitigate a populations hunger by supplying a food that they are unfamiliar with and therefore do not know how to prepare. It's more than just complex and I think that Mr Mau is being a bit too simplistic. Although I wholeheartedly agree with his dismissal of the notion of a fenced and protected profession. It's just that our practice (architecture) is coevil with the face of modern capitalism.

Difficult!

[S B]

No S B, I do not reject the struggles of others and from a builder of anything point of view I’ve paid no dues. Hell, I’ve only built one wee dory from scratch, never designed anything complex, have not even mediocre artistic skill, and am so far from rich that I am forced by circumstance, not nobility, to seek the solace of philosophy. What I have is a wide involvement with people who are making the difference.

And so I took the liberty of treating the little essay as a serious work rather than as a rant.

The "inspiration piece" is very poor writing that disguises murky dreaming about a very very difficult goal. Or at least what I think might be the goal, and a worthy one at that. The author might be urging that we bring all that goes into architecture - use of space, human engineering, beauty, efficiency, robust use of material like the radical breakthroughs in concrete, integration with the local environment, sane use of energy, etc etc - to the challenges of global development.

There are two problems besides obscure writing and muddled thinking - this guy’s not Howard Roark and Roark was only a bad fiction.
My post was not about you, if taken that way,it was not my intention. I read the insert again and I have no need to change my opinion of it. I am well aware of what it takes to influence culture, I attempt it all the time. No harm done?

[tomlarkin]

Jantje, I'd be interested in seing some of your model work that's in a museum. Sounds interesting. A picture of your "1:1" scale model boat plan would be nice, too.

[Timo_N62.9_E27.7]

One tip. Build the spars first. They take up less storage room and the hull won't have to sit waiting for them.

How funny, this is exectly what I am doing. After lofting and making the moulds I have made the spars and poured the ballast. Now I am making port frames, rudder and other bits and pieces. It is really a good approach, you see something finished soon and you don't have to commit to a large space where the hull will sit idle when these small bits are made.

[Chris Ostlind]

Wow! Lot's of interesting commentary to the thread over the last day and I'm grateful for the input from such a varied collection of experiences.

One thing that I'd like to define in the small period of available input is that the author's comments, while very much stratified for land-based architectural interests, has a secondary application of discussion when it comes to the design of boats, our understood philosophy along those lines and the solutions we reach in order to meet our globally understood needs. Mankind, as a whole, may require that we think in much broader terms, rather than simply the needs of putting out boats for the client base before us. As a design function, are we obligated to address wide-reaching goals in our work, or are we motivated to create soutions that answer immediate needs from a paying, or perceived, customer base?

That's a big question, as one wants to continue to turn enough coin to pay the rent and provide food and overhead, so that an on-going expression is possible. So, where in the vast collection of thoughts and design solutions should we reside if we are looking to a global, rather than an immediate, grouping of solutions? I placed this discussion here, because I wanted to know what was on the minds of small craft designers as they looked beyond their present goals and planned for the future of their craft. The posted article was only a means to bridge that discussion, so that a more fulfilling discussion could come forth.

I hope to see more thoughts within this context as we rush, headlong, into a new realm of boat design with diminishing and ever more expensive materials.

[jantje]

@ Tomlarkin


Yep!
My wife is working on getting some pictures online here.... I myself am a little too stupid with all the computer-work needed....... especially since from where I live (Ethiopian small-city of Debre Zeyt), online-work is double slow and complicated.
Just give it some patience ...it 'll come! ... we have got some good advice of how to do it from Forum-members here allready....just came through today.

Concerning the museums : Naval-museum in Cyprus, has a Herreshoff-Yacht of mine, the "Hope",- Museum of boats in Narbonne has a Bisquine ( also called Cancalaise...it s the threemasted Lugger-monster I was talking about ), a Thonier( Dundee or also Cotre a Tape cul ) and a fully functioning submarine....the "Papillion", the "Anra" and U- 21,- Prinz Hendrik-Museum in the Netherlands has a Koof ( no named )
A dentists waiting-room which he has turned into a museum around Einbeck -Germany has two versions of the Cutteryacht "Meteor" and a fully functioning version of the steam-ship "Malmo" ( the O of that Name actually having one of those swedish-dashes, which I can t do on the computer)....... You'll also find some of my minature models ( 1:100) introduced in recent publications of the "Modellwerft" -magazine ( Germany) >
the "Kibrit" ...a Dundee, and the "Elias" a coastal steamer around 1900.

Apart of that: A "Pinke" decorating the "Captain Kuerbis" - restaurant in Goettingen ( Germany), as well as a "Liberty-ship" the "Ohio", a HAPAG-steamer, the "Concorvado", a Tramp -steamer, the "Paloma" and a Baltimore-Clipper..the "Coulours" in the private Ship-museum of Mr Jarms in Jena..

NOT in Museums...but sold into private ownership are the "Quinta" ( Jamaica-sloop) the "Halve Maan" ...a small Dutch Galeon,the "Sirius" -a Steamwheeler, a Botter ( unnamed) the "Cabalito del Mar" a Painpol-schooner,
a Zee-Schouw ( unnamed) a Tramontana - Fishing boat, a couple of "catalanes"- also fishing boats, a Sinagot - French-fishing boat, the "Swallow" - Pilot-schooner, the "Bonito" ( yawl), the Nadine ( bermuda sloop) two Pilot-cutters...and of course the obligate Americas-cup boats...the "America" and the "Shamrock". Also a Barkentine...the Amphitrite, and a russian Black-sea brigantine as well as a Polakkre and a Navicello
Apart of that there have been plenty of Cutters, Sloops, ketches and Yawls.....all of my own design and going down the drain because I move around too much....having left them behind from whereever I was, when I built them. If You ever find a scale-model with a tiny CBP engraved in the bottom-edge of its keel...close to the rudder....anywhere in Germany, England, Holland or France..... well,then it s one of mine ;-)

Jantje

PS...the 1:1 will of course NOT be a model....but the real thing !..... Working on that plan still.

[David G]

Chris,

I believe that it is important to promote intelligent design (oops... loaded phrase... let's try another <G>) or judicious use of materials given the overall ecological, financial, and resource situation that exists in the world and is projected to exist in the short and medium term.

As a result of that belief, I've been promoting "green" building materials for everything from housing to furniture to boats... for many years. Even here in Portland, though, the bulk of the clients don't care. Or... don't care above a very small price premium. I do a certain amount of independent research into the materials and methods... but it's a fluid field. It takes time to keep up. Even so... building anything "green" takes a bit more research time in the design phase in order to ferret out the latest resources available - and to verify that they're not not simply the insubstantial swamp-gas that some of the promoted products and processes in the "green" field are.

So... what I've settle on is to keep my antennae attuned to hints that a given client might be interested in such issues, then present the options as I know them. I'll leave the green-oriented industrial design to those who can afford to focus on that aspect of the design world... and applaud them their incremental successes.

[Duncan Gibbs]

As a design function, are we obligated to address wide-reaching goals in our work, or are we motivated to create soutions that answer immediate needs from a paying, or perceived, customer base?

I guess this is my principle problem with Bruce Mau's "brutal" answer to his student questioner, and the resultant essay. I have to wrestle with this particular problem day in, day out in my professional life. Most of the stuff I do is in the public realm and for either developer, or government clients. They, of course, have their own agendas for the design (the "brief"), either to produce something easily legible and functional for the least amount of money (developer), or based on the idea that the design isn't really a set of decisions to be made about a space, but a process of consultation and analysis that will arrive at the stated "aims and objectives" of the brief, which is usually either prefaced or concluded with a series of motherhood statements about "world class" or "vital and energised community" or some such platitude that relates to no reality observable on the ground. Into all this I always try and find the opportunity to sneak in my own agenda to make a space 'a space' (or volume of defined air) and one that is arranged such that it gives some kind of pause to the analogue experience of moving through it and passing over and by its surfaces. What I've found is that people don't like being challenged unless they are being entertained in the 'safest' possible way.

Which leads me back to your question Chris: Thinking about trying to address wide reaching goals is a fine and admirable sentiment, but I'm afraid my faith in humanity doesn't extend that far any more. We have seen an abject failure of our elected (and unelected) officials to deal with any possible threat of climate change, whether you believe it real or not. Our clients, as designers, make decisions based upon what they know and what they want to know. Sometimes we strike it lucky and get a client who is willing to extend themselves and the surrounding community by virtue of allowing such a broader agenda to influence a specific design result in a specific location. But it's generally the rule that societal norms are built into the design process, and this is true on almost any level of practice.

The other difficulty is the Bruce Mau seems to prescribing that architects be proscribers. This may seem odd in light of my own view of the problems I've outlined above, but I don't believe that we should have an agenda we 'impose' on a client either. The site specific nature of what we do is well beyond any grand vision for the broader swathe of humanity.

This is a nice segue to boat design in terms of contrasting it with architecture/landscape architecture: A boat is an object, whilst an environment is a container of objects and spatial volumes.

Thanks for putting this thread up Chris: It's really got me thinking quite deeply about the two major aspects of my interests.