On Leaving Design

So I decided to leave the "Design" world. In a way at least. I still would consider myself a designer. I still build things, think critically about how they work or why they are constructed the way they are. I am just no long part of the traditional "Architecture" design industry. I don't design the building as a product. And honestly, from a design standpoint, I couldn't be more excited about that.

Certainly leaving the Architecture industry wasn't without a bit of anxiety. It's hard to leave the safety of the status quo, the romanticization of being a "designer", and the societal expectation that you go to school for 6 years - walk away with a professional degree - in order to climb the ladder as an architect (or hopefully Architect). In talking about leaving this well worn track, questions come easily. What if I miss design? What if I just give the industry 6 more months; will I like it better? Colleagues, family, and friends, ask "what is it exactly that you will be doing?" It's hard to answer those questions when that answer is outside the developed norms of the our professional language. Those aren't bad questions; they have a good point. Architect is understood. Architectural Design Technologist is not. But, well intentioned as they are, these are also the questions that keep you stuck in the system.

The truth is, while I identified as, and was pretty good at my job of, designer, I never felt truly comfortable in the role. I had great relationships with my colleagues, made good friends with some, but always felt like an outsider. I was frustrated that leadership was not receptive too, or was slow and conservative with, the ideas I brought to the table. Architectural designers pride themselves on thinking "different" and being "creative" but there are well defined channels in which this outside-the-box thinking is acceptable. You can think outside of the box as long as you stay inside the bigger box of "Architecture." It became claustrophobic.

The thing about design is that its process-driven. That process isn't always linear and it doesn't always lead to good results. But if you trust the process, you can, more often than not, either trust the result or know where you went wrong in order to get that result. If you don't trust the process though, its hard to trust the results. Sure the project might have turned out successfully by some chosen measure but how can you replicate that success consistently if the process is poor? That's the point I got to in the architectural design industry. I worked on the occasional successful and innovative project. It's hard to stay the course, though, when there are conversations all around about how it can be done better or about how what you are doing has poor results for people and the environment.

This is true across the whole of the design process from conceptual design to construction administration and, eventually, to operations. For instance, in concept phase, I wanted to know that the decisions we were making were built on a foundation of sound research and analysis. I wanted to know that our choice of construction methodology was environmentally sound and best for the job, not just "what we've done before." If the decisions were based on the long-held rules of thumb (that may or may not be out of date), the opinions of one man about what "people" like, or the investor-driven needs of capitalist development, why would I trust those decisions to be right? And after those conceptual design decisions have been made, while drawing construction sets, I wanted to know my time was being well spent. Were there better ways of automating repetitive tasks? Were there better ways of coordinating with engineers and manufacturers so that details were drawn correctly? Or was I just drawing to save my own ass only to later have those who actually fabricate the building redraw everything? Call me crazy but I didn't want to waste my time or do redundant work.

What's great about my new position as a Design Technologist at EvolveLAB is that it's freed me from this "box". I sit between the traditional disciplinary silos of AEC, no longer having to worry about the traditional bounds of the architecture industry and the long, historical baggage that comes with it. And being entirely process based, I help design tools that, in theory, make the design and construction process, from concept to documentation to construction, easier for those on the front lines. I'm excited to be asking questions about how we can supplement the design decision making process or how we can correctly and humanely integrate new tools into our design arsenal. Hopefully, as we gain more knowledge as a firm, drawn from a cross-section of thinkers and doers in the AEC industry, we can help facilitate the conversation about the future of design.

Of course I'm not the only person who feels this way. I now work with intelligent people who feel similarly. I'm getting more deeply ingrained in a social network of people doing amazing work in this space. It's funny because while I left the "design" industry, I can't help but feel that I'm doing more important design work than ever before.

Note: I also want to mention that, while I left the industry and am a touch disillusioned by it, I still have a strong belief in the good architecture can do. I have been following a broader conversation in the twitter-verse about "staying or going" in relation to the architecture industry. Is leaving the industry to consulting firms such as EvolveLAB or verticals such as WeWork or Katterra abandoning the industry? I think in the ideal world, people like me wouldn't have to leave in order to maximize our skill-sets. The architecture industry just hasn't gotten there yet. There is too much risk aversion or reverence for the way things are. Hopefully we can find a way to balance change with the core values of design that make architecture what it is.