AIArchitect

Thanks for contributing so much with this wonderful content.

First, it is clear from prior comments that Jim Sealy’s article is worthy and should be disseminated within and beyond our profession. Certainly, that is my belief. Further, I believe Jim’s message is broader that to simply applaud our education, experience, skills, knowledge and capabilities. Jim’s message addresses our responsibilities as well. For example, paths of travel must serve all and appropriate attention to human scale has a marked impact on the public's view of our designs that is greater than our sense of aesthetics.

A rational country would subject all laws and ordinances affecting the built environment, if not all designs for every type of faciltiy for human use, to absolute review by Jim Sealy.

It is perhaps a flaw of American democracy that we can only approximate this. Meanwhile, keep reading.

It seems in all of this conversation that the lawers, as usual, have skipped by a very fundamental and basic premise. Architects are what? We are humans of course and who is better equipped to understand and improve the human condition than a fellow human being who is professionally trained, has inherent insight into human needs and has committed his life's work to the cause.

This article should also be required reading for the folks who write Mirriam-Webster's dictionary, as they provided alternative terms for "ergonomics," none of which included the word "architecture."

Is it really funny, as the author says, that the profession is so misunderstood that architects have to write articles to defend ourselves in places only read by other architects?

This article poses general questions and then purports to answer those questions with declarative statements about the author's own views, which happen to reinforce the views of many people reading the blog. What do architects know about the way people walk? Everything!

Such simple answers. And such simple minds.

This article needs to have the widest possible audience. Because it has a strong opinion makes it all the more important to be discussed. This should be on the front page of AIA Architect and could even be the subject of a broader article in Architectural Record - perhaps as a point-counter-point discussion with various "experts", which as Jim maintains should of course include architects. This is a great platform for discussion about what architects really do. We are not just form-makers for the skyline, but every line we draw reflects a decision about how people use the spaces we create. For everything from door sizes and light switch locations to handrail heights and stair profiles we influence how people use buildings.

Mr. Sealy's observations are irrefutable and worthy of wider dissemination than an online blog for architects. As with Mr. Green's recommendation that all Chapter Newsletters print this article, our nation's legal journals should likewise convey to trial lawyers this knowledge that is second nature to practicing architects.

He is absolutely correct. Tell us more.

pch

When man first moved a rock to change his environment, he undoubtedly uncovered a lawyer.

Whenever encountering obvious jargon, as in "human factor" or "ergonomics", know that what usually follows is, if anything, a pale imitation of a larger truth. The United States has a long tradition of snake oil salesmen who first grandly declare "Look at the problem!" and then the solution, voila! The lawyers didn't get there first, but they sure like the results.

The first two images that come to my mind are Le Corbusier's Modular and the pages in Graphic Standards which show all of the human figures with the appropriate ergonomic dimensions for every activity. Invariably first and second year design students are introduced to these diagrams in conjunction with basic design problems. They (We) are taught to consider these issues and will be criticized throughout their careers if these factors are not considered. Ergonomic scale, proportion and interaction are factors which every architect works with on a daily basis regardless of the building type, program, or level of development. These factors are the very base level of architectural design.

Regardless of other comments and Step's feelings about Jim---This article should be printed or all other submittals that express the authors opinion SHOULD NOT BE PRINTED.

Of course, Jim Sealy is nearly always correct, not always politically, but always correct. If we architects don't stand up for all the years of training in "egonomics" which is architecture, we are going to be lost. I have always insisted that pictures and rendered drawings of my work must have at least one human form in it, preferably three, a female, a male and a child. Otherwise why build the building? Buildings are for human use and we should all remember that. Our design awards photo requirements should say the photos "shall" include a human! That is what we do..........?

Though I agree with the article and the 2 posted comments to date, I contend in general that most buildings paraded on the covers of our architectural magazines and company websites do not show buildings that have any sense of human scale.
It is not until one looks closely at the 'accidently' included picture showing a human being taking a drink from a fountain that we see the human using the building. For instance, the modernists designed for the human in the midst of technological advances in materials even though their buildings looked very different from everything else. As an example, the giant modern 'McMansion' of Richard Neutra at least had human scale. Today, our 'magazine buildings', though interesting, show how popular architects have become overly enamored with technological material changes and thus have allowed 'Form' to trump the human factor. This in fact is evidence that architecture schools have finally reached a degree of success in teaching design over all else to their students, and this is just what our magazines show. This of course confuses everyone and therefore reinforses the notion that architects are not ergonomic. Fact is health, safety and welfare is the human factor. This is largely overlooked in architecture schools and graduate practitioners. If architects do not embrace the human factor which really should drive everything we design, then we might as well call our buildings what they really are- Interesting yet glorified 'dog houses'.

I think this hits at at the core of what architects do--we design for people's use. It is inherent in the business of architecture that architects understand size, proportion, scale of human beings. Architects are inherently knowledgable about human factors.

All AIA chapters should include this arrticle in their Chapter Bulletin.

Hank Green III, AIA