Part One: What Starbucks Gets that Architects Dont

Or why I left the architecture profession

[read part two here]

Dear architects,

Youre outdated. I know this because I once was one of you. But now Ive moved on. I moved on
because despite your love of a great curve, and your experimentation with form, you dont
understand people.

I correct myself. You dont listen to people.

In legal terms, an architect is the all seeing, all knowing, building professional. You are liable for
anything that goes wrong with a building but if someone just hates the spaces you design? If
someone feels uncomfortable, or cold, or scared? Well theres no lawsuit for that.

I used to think it was impossible for you to respond to an audience in the way that tech startups
do. These startups can build a product, release it over the Internet and adjust it based on the
feedback they get. Its an iterative process. Architecture, I thought, was too permanent for that.
There was too much at stake, there was only one chance to get it right, there were too many
variables. Blah blah blah.

But the truth is, most of you dont try. You rely on rules of thumb and pattern books, but you
rarely do in-depth ethnographic research. You might sit at the building site for an hour and watch
people use space but do you speak to them? Do you find out their motivations? Do your
attempts really make their way into your design process?

The world is changing. You have all these new tools at your fingertips. New tools that I dont see
you using and quite a few old techniques that you could get a lot better at.

This really hit home for me when I read a recent article on the design of Starbucks stores. Now
you might hate Starbucks. You might believe they are a soulless commercial entity with no
architectural merit at all, but do you know what they are good at? Responding to peoples needs
and desires.

The article reads:

Starbucks interviewed hundreds of coffee drinkers, seeking what it was that they wanted out of a
coffee shop. The overwhelming consensus actually had nothing to do with coffee; what
consumers sought was a place of relaxation, a place of belonging.

My dear architects. This is why Starbucks designed round tables in their stores. They were
strategically created in an effort to protect self-esteem for those coffee drinkers flying solo.
They were not round because the architect felt it looked better that way, they were not round
because they were cheaper, they were round because as the article concludes there are no empty
seats at a round table.

The round tables at Starbucks were the result of asking the question how do we want people
to feel before considering what do we want them to do.

Form follows feeling.

Starbucks interviewed hundreds of coffee drinkers before determining that round tables would be
the best solution for people.

Now Im not saying that all architects are dumb in this regard. Residential architects are often
quite successful when it comes to building livable spaces. And then theres Gehl Architects.
Theyre particularly known and respected for their ethnographic techniquesthough
these days
they seem to focus on master plans and urban regeneration and I dont think they really do
architecture. Do they? And even then, I would have to assume that these architects employ old
school methods of observation with limited sample sizes.

You have not, it seems, embraced the opportunities that the Internet has given to us.
Opportunities like: polling a vast number of people using online tools or modeling the likelihood
that a retail space will actually get foot traffic. No one wants an empty row of shops. It makes for
a sad neighborhood. You could use and develop tools that help you understand if this will
happen. But you dont.

And as for the rest of the profession. Lets face it, most commercial buildings, hospitals, and
police stations are underwhelming. And even when they are pleasing to the eye, it doesnt mean
they are built to address human needs: if you dont believe me, read this New York Times
review of Santiago Calatravas buildings.

No wonder architecture has become a niche vocation. You dont connect with people any
more.
The problem is that architects seem to pray at the feet of the latest hyped-up formal language. I
dare you. Flip through an architectural magazine today. Find any people in the photographs? I
didnt think so. Find plenty of pictures that worship obscure angles and the place where two
materials meet? You betcha.

Maybe Im wrong. Maybe the profession grew up while I wasnt watching and started throwing
more than a cursory glance to the people who would inhabit their buildings. But what really
drives it home is that the majority of you never perform post occupancy evaluations! (That one I
cant get over).

So if Im wrong, prove it. For now I remain humbly disappointed.

Read Part Two

This article has generated a lot of love and a lot of hate. Thats why, a couple of weeks after the it
started to take off, I decided to turn it back to you. I created two surveys. The first was designed
for architects and former architects and I invited you to comment on your own profession (1047
responses). The second was designed for those that had worked with an architect and I asked you
to tell the world about your experience (198 responses). For the results, read Part Two.

And for those that want to stay in contact go here.

I started my career practicing architecture and urban design in Australia.Since moving to the
US, Ive been a research fellow at MITs SENSEable City Lab, a creative director of the civic
innovation think tank Re:Imagine Group, founded the City Innovation Group and am currently
the VP, Invention Director at Deutsch LA.
Part Two: What Starbucks Gets that Architects Dont
Or what architects and others think of the architecture profession.

How time flies.

More than a year ago I was lying in bed penning an article named What Starbucks Gets that
Architects Dont. I remember it took me a couple of hours to write. I didnt overly think it. Just
spilled some frustrations onto a page and hit publish.

And while I hadnt intentionally set about to write a divisive article, the premise
should
architects do more to understand the people they design for by harnessing new digital tools hit
a chord with architecture and design professionals: I got love letters and hate mail, was called
names, and was given praise. It was a wild time (thanks for the ride).

But after I first hit publish, one of the things that became obvious was that I was just one voice
and one opinion. And as many of you pointed outI was no longer a practitioner of architecture,
so who was I to comment!

Thats why, a couple of weeks after the article started to take off, I decided to turn it back to you.
I created two surveys. The first was designed for architects and former architects and I invited
you to comment on your own profession (1047 responses). The second was designed for those
that had worked with an architect and I asked you to tell the world about your experience (198
responses).

What follows are the key findings to The Understanding Architecture Surveys. But (!) before you
pen your hate-tweet, there are a couple of things to keep in mind:

1. Im not a survey designer and looking back on some of the questions I would
add some, reword some, and remove some. Too late now?

2. Because I believe in transparency, at the end of the article youll see links to
the survey responses (with emails, names and twitter handles removed) so
you can go through the results yourselves.

Now on to key findings!

FINDING ONE
27% of architects who answered the survey have never performed a post-
occupancy evaluation, and 40% perform them, but dont formally capture the
findings.

These numbers didnt surprise me. When I was working in architecture I had a hunch that we
werent doing a very good job at this. But what did surprise me was the follow up question that
tried to get to the bottom of why these surveys were not being performed.
While 49.1% of people surveyed felt that the evaluations got sidelined because the client wasnt
interested, 28.9% said it simply wasnt a priority for their firm! (It should be noted that only
1.8% said it wasnt relevant to the practice of architecture.) Meanwhile one third of respondents
didnt know or didnt have access to the right tools. What I take away from this is three things:

Its pretty difficult to change a building once it has been built, so its no
wonder clients dont want to pay for the survey. Therefore, architects need to
build a budget for this in another wayfeel free to insert here how this might
be achieved or if youve had any success with this.

As a profession, we dont have enough tools that allow us to easily perform

and formally capture the results from Post Occupancy Evaluations in a cheap
and effective way.

Theres an opportunity here to create a free open-source compendium of

tools that will help the profession perform post-occupancy evaluations
please reach out to me through this link if you are interested in contributing
to such a compendium, or if you want to help put it together for others to
access.

When asked about Post Occupancy Evaluations, survey respondents said:

For those that never/rarely perform Post Occupancy Evaluations: why not?
FINDING TWO
An architects own intuition/experience and one-on-one conversations are the top
ways that survey respondents said they understand user needs.
This is one of those survey questions that I wish Id added more options to, including pattern
books, and a space to add your own tools. The results are also a little, well, duh. But
nevertheless, when I look at the results in the context of other answers, what I draw from it is:

1. The architecture profession mostly relies on non-digital tools to derive an

understanding of human needs. Perhaps this isnt a bad thing. But I would
argue that a suite of digital tools that are specifically designed to help
architects understand future users (and the experiences of current users)
could be an incredible complement to existing techniques.

When asked about the techniques that they regularly use to understand the people
they are designing for, survey respondents said:
FINDING THREE
Only 2.6% of non-architects felt that the profession does an excellent job of
understanding the needs and desires of present and potential building occupants.

See below for the full breakdown of the result. I also have to admit that this result might be a
little skewed23%
of the people surveyed were responding based on knowing an architect, not
working directly with one and there were only 198 people surveyed. However, I think its safe to
say, that true or not, the publics perception of an architects ability to understand the human
condition is not all that favorable.

FINDING FOUR
IDEO, Gensler & B.I.G are some of the top firms that architects think have a good
toolkit for understanding the people they design for.

Many of you responded with small firms who have a great toolkit (yay!), but I thought you might
also be interested in names that appeared multiple times in the survey results (as well as separate
emails, and tweets I received). This may be a result of these firms having a big marketing budget,
or perhaps its because they really do have good tools. I think the next step would be to reach out
to these firms to understand how they practice and whether they would be willing to share their
knowledge as part of an open source library of toolsif
anyone is interested in working with me
on this outreach, please let me know.

In no particular order:

IDEO

Gensler

B.I.G
 Gehl

SHoP

Architecture for Humanity

Project for Public Spaces

Frog Design

The full list can be found through the links at the bottom of this page.

FINDING FIVE
49% of architects surveyed are dissatisfied with the tools at their fingertips and
want to know more.

Whats interesting about this question is that even the respondents that were happy with the tools
they currently use (32.8%), also wanted to know about other tools. These findings are part of the
reason why I think its important to create an open source compendium of tools.

When asked if they were satisfied with the tools/methods that they use to
understand the people they are designing for, survey respondents said:
FINAL THOUGHTS

This follow-up post has been a long time coming. And Im the first to recognize that the original
article, and also the surveys contains some flaws. But what I am excited about are the number of
architects who wish to know more. Who want more tools at their fingertips. Who want to
improve the profession as a whole. This is why Id love the profession to step up and to create an
open-source compendium of tools and training. But Ill need your help. Its your industry. You
have the embodied knowledge, not me. So if youre interested in contributing tools or building
out the website that can house them, then reach out and Ill help keep the ball rolling. For the
good of the practice, we need you.

Links:

The original post can be read here.

The original survey for architects and former architects can be found here and the results can be
found here.
The original survey for non-architects can be found here and the results can be found here.

If you want to contribute to the building of an open-source compendium of digital tools and
training for architects, click here.

Note: Results were collated and printed on July 5, 2015. All personal details including emails,
twitter handles, and names have been removed from the survey results.

A final special shout-out

Thanks to the survey respondent who called me a dumb hoe. Im guessing you meant ho?
Unless of course you meant to imply that Im a thin metal blade, used mainly for weeding and
breaking up soil. Either way, it made me laugh, and for that I thank you.