Architectural-based Think Tank + Branding (2)

Architectural-based Think Tank + Branding (2):

Set free the design sector

解放設計團隊

In the traditional architecture firm, the design sector is only a part of the whole group, and they are usaually responsible for the construction ducuments as well, which spends most of their time and energy. And because the lifetime of a single project usaully takes months to years, it's almost impossible and relatively unimportant to keep this "design brain" fresh and active, not to mention trying to do "interdisciplinary design". Such words you architectural designer always hear from others: "Don't waste too much time on this, we still have lots more to do" or "Boring? Finish these documents ASAP and you can have fun with the next one (even we don't have a damn clue where the next one is gonna be...)"

傳統建築事務所裡，設計只是一小部分，在小型事務所裡設計部門的人更需要三頭六臂很強的能力，這裡頭的設計師要有點設計sense(有點就好了)，會畫施工圖，最好真的有些經驗真的懂施工(不然PM很辛苦)。每個建築案子的期程，動不動用年來算，這當中設計師需要跟著(PM拉著下面一個畫圖小弟)從頭到尾，從SD到CD，搞不好還要被抓到山上去監工(?)，哪裡還跟你談創意談設計的熱誠呢？跨領域啊？你是神經病嘛？"設計"沒這麼重要了，而你總會聽到別人跟你說："別在這裡想太多，我們還有很多事要做" 或是"忍一忍吧，趕快把施工圖畫完就可以做別的設計啦"就算下個"有趣的"設計在哪裡連個影子都看不到...

As everyone know, architect is not the one producing all the design. It's the project manager and the design team under him doing those tasks. After the team came up with a great idea during schematic design(SD), they begin to work on design development(DD), and, if in a small firm, very likely to be led directly to construction ducuments(CD). Here comes the problem, usaully in small firms, you don't often get good desginers who can at the same time be efficient document producers. As a result, the innovation dies down, atmosphere turns gloomy, and the firm has no more space for new project. Why not take the design sector out of a single firm? Leave other tasts to someone else better.

當然建築師並不是真正做設計的人(會啦，但一部分而已)，而是PM帶著設計師做出來的。這些人想出了很棒的idea，然後進到DD，熱情開始慢慢下降，到了CD急速冷卻(熱愛設計的人又熱愛施工圖大概是21世紀最夯的新人類吧)，然後一個小事務所因為人力集中到生產施工文件而無法注入新活力...。為何不把設計跟施工文件甚至監工分工開來呢？讓適合不同工作的人放在不同位置(事務所需要到一定規模才有辦法在內部做到這種清楚的畫分，中小事務所需要的是實習生超人)

Here's the change, conceptually, the design team got out of single firm (burden) and become able to work with many other firms freely. What this design team actually become is a window between clients and architects. They now offer architectural designs to more clients, all the way from planning to DD, and hand in the pakages to architect firms for CD and further tasts. But this is not good enough. This design team need to offer holistic front-end strategy, which includes "branding" for the whole product line. Moreover, they need to have marketing skills, and interdisciplinary design abilities of all co-pruducts comes along with the architecture product.

這個設計團隊不在受限於單一公司之後，可以與非常多小事務所合作，並做為銜接業主與建築師之間的窗口。從SD設計一直到DD，然後再將整個設計pakage移交給建築師進行CD和之後施工相關工作。這個團隊具備品牌行銷能力，具備跨領域設計能力，還有該建築產品有關的其他產品設計能力。

But who's gonna be the client? what kind of project?

What the hell is architectural branding? Branding for whom?

And an architect wight ask with scorn: "Wait a minute, why do you think I would work with you??"

但是誰是業主？做什麼樣的建築類型？

建築+品牌有沒有搞頭？幫誰做品牌？

建築師也會問阿：奇怪捏~憑什麼我要跟你合作？

to be continued...

待續.

Architectural-based Think Tank + Branding : some thoughts (1)

If everything to make a better life is called design, design is everywhere. And yes, it is everywhere. If we draw a chart with Temporality in the x-axis and Superficiality in the y-axis, then all different types of design industry fall into the diagram and become easier to compair the different characteristics among them (p.s. this is purly personal perspective, no scientific statics supported...). Saying that Superficiality means how much do end users know about/pay attention to the product and Temporality means the lifetime of the product, we can see graphic design and many others fall to the top-right while infrastructure falls to the buttom- left. The truth is those on the top-right had been integrated more or less for a very long time. Comparably new business like Branding, is one stream that coordinates graphics, advertising, industrial designs, etc. and marketing/strategies. Funny thing is that, as "interdisciplinary" as branding companies are, they haven't really touched the field of architecture, even they sometimes do interior designs and the boundary between the both had became weaker and weaker.... But does architecture have no need of branding at all? Is brand something one architect may eventually have but can't pursue by means? What if architecture becomes more and more like industrial products? Why are we eager to sell our products but tend to refuse to think ourselves as businessmen? What if we can do branding for our architectural works? It's not something new, it happened quite often, intentionally or not. But we architects weren't really aware of it's importance(or we think it's good-design that only matters), and we never really push it in a more interdisciplinary way. In other words, we don't really "sell" our products.


To be continued...


如果我們用"使用者意識到或瞭解產品的程度"作為縱軸，"產品平均壽命"作橫軸，我們可以比較容易看出市場上五花八門的設計行業不同的屬性跟取向，這兩項也是我覺得用來劃分設計領域比較有意義的指標(ps. 沒有經過任何統計數字，純粹不嚴謹的個人觀察)。"品牌"這個相對較新的行業是跨領域設計其中一種多半從平面設計起家，除了具備行銷, 市場, 經濟的專業外，跨及廣告產品, 工業設計，甚至室內設計。但有趣的是似乎沒有人真正碰觸到建築設計，也許是因為建築需要太多專業知識，也許因為已經有太多建築設計師，又或許根本建築設計不是他們在考量整體品牌形象時會考量的東西。室內設計與建築設計界線越來越模糊，工業設計尺度大了，也可以定義為建築，凡是可以裝著人的，我們都可以叫建築，來自四面八方的人都開始思考起空間容器，手開始伸探到建築師的口袋裡，建築師們的手放在哪裡? 我們受的訓練優勢在哪裡，我們可以跨得出去嗎？ 難到建築設計品牌化只能是大師的專利，可遇不可求？如果建築早就開始商品化呢？如果市場上需要越來越多壽命短而精采的建築"商品"呢？難道一間成功的精品旅館，不需要跨及建築外觀到廣告手冊的整體行銷嗎？為什麼建設公司比總是建築師還在意行銷，我們嫌它們醜卻又畫地自限呢? 難道自詡為設計師，就不能同時是商人嗎？ 


新型態的設計團隊，待續。

Isn't It remarkable? I'm terrified!!

題外話，也是開場白
我剛開始來到Harvard上課，在許多衝擊的其中一項，就是老師很常用youtube影片當課堂中的reference，課堂的reading assignment也直接給你一個網址而已。剛開始很訝異，我以為老師會花很多時間把教材準備好，包裝好，整合在一起交給學生，像這樣中途離開full screen 的powerpoint，開個網頁，連上youtube影片，看起來好像很不專業，因為小學生都會，因為你跟我在打混摸魚 讀書不讀書上網看電視的時候都會。但我後來明白，資訊太快了，太多了，也很多都幫你準備得好好的。Google幫你做好了最好用的瀏覽器(?)，Youtube幫你做好了最容易的播放器，甚至字幕都準備好了，全螢幕播放也舒舒服服的，廣大網路用戶交換著最新的資訊，要講求效率，還需要自己辛苦作講義嗎？不如多話時間去找更多有用的新資訊。
我要說的是，以前念書規念書，逛網路是一種罪，是不務正業，對的，會分心，如果你不知道你在幹嘛的話。但現在網路太多東西太健全太方便太新太快也太多一流的服務，做個作業要上網路，查資料要上網路，甚至連跟教授meeting也要用skype阿(?!)。這麼多人跟飛的一樣，趕快跑起來阿，在那邊管你鞋帶那個結繫緊繫漂亮了幹嘛，你知道你需要的可能是一雙翅膀嗎？
這幾天我看到了一個快嚇死我的新聞，但也不是新聞了，以網路資訊更新的標準來看，我已經落後太久了。那是Geoffrey West，一位物理學教授的研究成果，內容很龐大，但簡單來說有幾項概念：
所有生物，其新陳代謝與體積有固定的數學關係，就是一套公式，從小老鼠到鯨魚都通用。這部分不是新發現，但是可怕的是這種關係，甚至可以放大到人造物上面，甚至是城市。以前常常聽說把建築把都市看作生命體，但只停留在一種譬喻，講穿了就是賣弄說嘴的狗屁，對於都市對於社會文明，我們束手無策，這巨大一塊是科學一直沒有碰觸也不知如何切入的領域。Geoffrey West透過蒐集全球個城市的資料，包括電力，瓦斯，水系統...等等，跟人口的比較，發現跟動物一樣，都符合同一個方程式；更嚇人的是，當他把都市的創造力－專利數，研究數..等等一起加進來分析，發現了另一個關係，而這樣的新的方程式，是所有古今中外城市皆通用的。簡單來說，給你一個城市的人口密度，我就可以告訴你大概需要多少的電纜下水道加油站，或甚至這個城市的人有多少創造力多少犯罪率 ...，Geoffrey West聲稱它可以告訴你超過八九成關於地球上任何一個城市的詳細資料，即便是他從來沒去過的城市。有沒有嚇死你？嚇死我了。這項是告訴你一個屬於都市設計的F=ma一樣，馬上你可以丟掉一些不可能的妄想了，甚至也告訴你，也不用想要怎麼設計都市了，因為所有有設計跟沒設計的文明發展都落到這個方程式裡面，設計跟不設計沒多大差別(是嗎？)
當然有設計規劃過的城市可能比較舒服，但是很可能不會比較繁榮，因為繁不繁榮背後是有一個巨大而且複雜的引擎－或通則在運作。我覺得在談永續城市的人都應該看看這份研究，不要再用n百年前的方式談永續烏托邦了，也不要再拿永續一詞來掩飾你的利益薰心了，不要再封閉在那個建築和都市美學的鄉愁裡了，跟世界接軌吧，跟其他領域接軌吧。建築師自以為什麼都要懂，卻避著眼睛摀著耳朵端詳著自己美美的圖。從看看TED系列演講開始吧，先惡補一下你錯過的半個世紀。


關於Geoffrey West教授，我懶得附連結了，自己去查！