The Bucket List

“The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page.”
St. Augustine 

All too quickly it seems 2013 is coming to a close. The end of the year is a time when many people are taking stock of what they did or did not accomplish during the preceding twelve months. Ultimately, everyone’s goal is to have lived a life with no regrets. A common yearning is to see as much of the world as possible, to sail away from the safe harbor of the familiar, explore strange lands, and return refreshed and enriched. 

Many architects I know are prone to wanderlust, venturing on lengthy pilgrimages to see seminal architecture and places. Unlike my peers, I’m less enamored of traveling, the tribulations of which seem to increase ten-fold or more each time my wife and I embark on a trip. Regardless, I’ve journeyed enough to recognize the importance of overcoming my aversion to vacation hassles. As an architect, I know acquiring firsthand knowledge of my medium is far superior to looking at mere photographs of famous buildings. 

Accordingly, I’ve assembled a “bucket list,” an assortment of architectural landmarks I want to visit before I die.(1) This is a personal collection. It’s a useful gauge for me, motivation for leading a no-regrets life. It’s a means to achieving one set of goals I consider significant and meaningful.(2) 

In alphabetical order, here’s my list: 

The Alhambra
The last Muslim emirs in Spain (Nasrid dynasty, 9th century AD) built the Alhambra’s Islamic palaces on a strategic site overlooking Granada previously occupied by a fortress. In the centuries that followed, the Alhambra would subsequently see partial demolition and successive construction of new portions in various styles. It narrowly missed disaster when Napoleon’s retreating troops attempted (but failed) to blow it up, instead laying abandoned for many years. Ultimately, Spanish authorities declared the Alhambra a national monument, and the process of repairing, restoring, and preserving the complex continues today. 

It is the Alhambra’s layering of history and styles, its changes over time, and its organic adaptation to the mountainous site that are fascinating to me. 
 

The Court of the Lions, Alahambra (photo by comakut via Flickr under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

Fallingwater
I previously blogged about how as a child I instantly became captivated by Fallingwater upon seeing a photograph of Frank Lloyd Wright’s masterpiece for the first time, and how discovering it would set me on my life’s path. While all of the buildings and places in my bucket list are equally worthy, I think I would be most regretful if I did not check off Fallingwater before my time is done. 

Fallingwater (photo by Sxenko via Wikimedia used under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2)

Ise Shrine
The Ise Shrine intrigues me because of its radical simplicity and the antiquity of its architecture. It is simultaneously perfect and primitive, at once both ancient and new. Ise is re-built at enormous expense every 20 years as part of the Shinto belief of the death and renewal of nature and the impermanence of all things. 

My sense is that Ise represents the most fundamentally Japanese architecture of all. If and when I visit Japan, what I find may prove or disprove my instinctive response to the images of Ise I have seen. 

Naiku, Ise (photo by N-Yotarou via Wikimedia used under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2)

Kimbell Art Museum
Because of the presence of some of his followers and former employees on the faculty(3), the work of Louis Kahn was highly influential at the University of Oregon during my time there in the early 1980's. I thoroughly studied his projects, ultimately concluding that the Kimbell Art Museum was truly the best expression of his elemental approach to architecture and the one Kahn building I have to see before I die. 

What I find most noteworthy about the museum was Kahn’s use of natural light as the primary shaper of form, as well as the palette of timeless and durable materials he employed, that together achieve an unrivaled sense of serenity and elegance.
 

Kimbell Art Museum (photo from Wikimedia Commons)

Ronchamp
Upon its completion in 1954, Le Corbusier’s Chapel of Notre Dame de Haut in Ronchamp was widely as regarded as a retreat from the modern movement, and as bafflingly peculiar and primitive. Viewed in the context of his entire oeuvre, Ronchamp was actually consistent with Corb’s idiosyncratic, complex approach to his art, and a “pure creation of the spirit.” Like many of his other works, it is in fact highly rational, meant to be experienced as part of a carefully arranged architectural procession. I hope to one day join the legions of architects who have made the pilgrimage to Ronchamp and experience its intense sculptural power firsthand. 

Chapel  of Notre Dame de Haut, Ronchamp (photo via Wikipedia by Valueyou used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License)

Sagrada Familia
Every time I read or see more about Antoni Gaudi’s magnum opus, the Sagrada Familia, the more spectacular it seems. The enormous Art Nouveau/neo-Gothic confection is already more than 130 years in the making, with a goal of completion by 2026 (the centenary of Gaudi’s death). Gaudi’s nature-inspired, thoroughly imaginative, and highly symbolic language of architectural forms and craft is entirely unique. 

 Sagrada Familia (photo via Wikimedia by Bernard Gagnon used under the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2)

A recent segment on TV’s 60 Minutes further piqued my fascination with the Sagrada Familia. Click the link below to view “God’s Architect: Antoni Guadi’s Glorious Vision:”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnNwpmdWm1w 

Sydney Opera House
Jørn Utzon’s Sydney Opera House is universally regarded as one of the greatest architectural works of the 20th century. So powerful is its design, it is now difficult for anybody not to view the Opera House as an iconic symbol for the entire nation of Australia. 

The brilliance of Utzon’s competition-winning concept is balanced against the trials and tribulations it experienced during its protracted realization. I find the prospect of one day seeing the Opera House intriguing not only to experience its beauty but also to measure its success in the face of the hurdles it had to overcome. 

 

Sydney Opera House (photo via Wikimedia by hpeterswald under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license).

*    *    *    *    *    *

Having my architectural bucket list is all well and good, but the very fact it is a list is also its shortcoming. A precise itinerary connecting the dots on a map may fail to make room for the serendipitous and unplanned. A case in point is the grand tour of Europe I undertook between my sophomore and junior years of college. I had my list of architectural icons to see, but it was the revelations—the discovery of remarkable buildings unfamiliar to me—that would prove most rewarding. Nevertheless, my list provides me with a road map of sorts, a set of goals to reach for, and a sense of gratitude for the opportunities still awaiting me. 

What is your bucket list?

(1)   In addition to the buildings and places I include here, a few more also figure prominently on my bucket list:

a.      The Acropolis

b.      Chichen Itza

c.      Chrysler Building

d.      Hagia Sophia

e.      Henry Mercer’s Fonthill, Museum, and Tile Works

f.       Machu Picchu

g.     Various National Park lodges

h.      Robie House

i.       Taj Mahal

 

(2)    My complete bucket list includes much more than just visiting buildings:

a.      Remodeling our home and yard

b.      Flying in a WWII-era “warbird”

c.      Learning to speak Japanese

d.      “Simplifying”

e.      Reading more literary classics

f.       Making a difference/leaving behind something of value

 

(3)   Richard Garfield, Thom Hacker, Bill Kleinsasser, and Gary Moye among them.

 

#CSIStats

I’ve never been a numbers or statistics person, at least when it comes to collecting, organizing, and analyzing data. On the other hand, I do enjoy interpreting the data collected by others and drawing conclusions from it. This is why I was intrigued when the Construction Specifications Institute announced it has launched its weekly #CSIStats Information Campaign. The goal is to help CSI leaders understand where CSI stands today by sharing facts about the Institute. 

The Institute will post new #CSIStats on its website each Monday through next February, as well as on its other social media outlets (Twitter and Facebook). I found the first week’s entries fascinating: 

 

This last factoid was probably week one’s biggest surprise. What about the other 75% of zip codes? The logical inference we can derive from this one statistic is that CSI’s reach is presently limited and the potential to add to the membership rolls is great. 

Raising eyebrows and “I did not know that” reactions is exactly what the Institute is hoping for. It sees its #CSIStats campaign as a conversation starter for CSI leaders at all levels. These conversations are important as CSI prepares to update its strategic plan (read it at www.csinet.org/strategicplan ) in 2015. In these fast-changing times, it’s important for CSI’s leaders to know where the organization stands today and where it should be going in the future. 

Ultimately, the goal is to ensure that CSI remains relevant to its membership. Following the maxim of “know thyself,” CSI is using all the tools at its disposal to understand how best to fulfill its mission, which is to advance building information management and educate project teams to improve facility performance. #CSIStats is one such tool. 

All CSI members can participate in conversations about #CSIStats, especially those conversations happening online. For example, you can participate in the CSI Leaders LinkedIn Group (join it here), or post or respond to a blog entry. As I mentioned above, the Institute will post new #CSIStats at www.csinet.org/csistats every Monday. If you have questions or comments, email chapterrelations@csinet.org. 

Community Design Guide

Over the past few months, the City of Eugene’s Urban Design Team has assembled an outline for a proposed Community Design Guide. This non-regulatory collection of design principles and guidelines will set expectations for design excellence in Eugene and lay the foundation for achieving the community’s vision in the built environment. 

The outline of the Guide is organized into five sections that identify broad, intuitive areas of application, generally moving from large scale to small scale:

1. Integrate nature and design for Eugene’s climate
2. Evoke a sense of place
3. Embrace Eugene’s most successful development patterns
4. Bring the streets to life
5. Leave a building legacy

Design principles identify important concepts within each section. Additionally, design guidelines provide concise, descriptive, and imperative statements under each principle. 

Broadly speaking, the Community Design Guide will represent best practices related to design in support of the Seven Pillars of Envision Eugene. More specifically, the Guide will address how design excellence can be achieved at the individual project level. While policy statements contained in other documents will set a clear direction for the community and answer important questions about how to meet our future needs, the Guide will identify specific ways to create a more prosperous, healthy and livable built environment.

A leading purpose of the Community Design Guide is to bridge the gap between policy level planning and on-the-ground projects using the language of design. Guidelines contained in the Guide will address projects of all scales, ranging from neighborhood and district planning to individual site development. The comprehensive nature of the document will make it relevant to anyone who may be involved in design, including neighbors, developers, designers, policy makers, and city staff. 

Following its initial publishing, the Community Design Guide will continue to serve as a flexible, living document that can be easily updated as needed. Accessible online, the Guide will be accompanied by additional resources such as sketches, examples, and case-studies that expand upon its principles and guidelines. Ultimately, the document will set the stage for ongoing conversation about expectations and aspirations for design excellence in Eugene. 

City of Eugene planners are asking the entire community to take a look at the draft outline of the Guide. They encourage anyone who may be interested to visit the project web site at www.eugene-or.gov/designguide  for more information.  The web site includes a short video explaining the background and purpose of the document. The video describes our community’s shared values, our vision for the future, and how the Guide will help translate these into the built environment. It also describes the possible format, organization, and appearance of the Community Design Guide in its final form. The completed Guide will be a user-friendly, reasonably short, magazine-style document well-illustrated with photographs, diagrams, and examples of local projects that help achieve the community vision. The intent behind this format is to capture the essence of design principles in a way that's accessible to professionals as well as lay-persons, and to inspire great design. 

After watching the video and reviewing the draft, the City asks you to share your thoughts and ideas by completing the its online questionnaire. City staff regards your input as critical to ensuring the Community Design Guide helps achieve everyone’s vision for the future. The City will collect thoughts and ideas through January 15 for this phase of the project. 

November AIA-SWO Chapter Meeting Recap

Design studio at the Pratt Institute (still image from the movie Archiculture)

 

Hop Valley Brewing Company's new production brewery and tasting room at 990 West 1st Avenue was the refreshingly different venue for AIA-SWO's November chapter meeting. The new facility has made a splash in the local microbrewery scene, a testament to the quality and craft of the beer the company produces, as well as the skill of architect Jenna Fribley, AIA and her practice envelōp design. It was the perfect setting for heralding a change of the AIA-SWO guard and critically examining the culture of our schools of architecture. 

The AIA-SWO change I speak of is actually routine and welcomed: the annual announcement of candidates and their election to the chapter’s board of directors. Each new board brings its own unique agenda to the governance of AIA-SWO. 2014 president Scott Clarke, AIA set the tone for his coming administration by citing the AIA’s Repositioning initiative and the national organization’s desire to become more agile and effective at addressing important issues affecting members and the profession. For Scott, this means embracing the concept of a chapter board capable of meeting the needs of our increasingly varied membership. Accordingly, he enlisted new board members reflecting diverse backgrounds and avenues of professional endeavor. For example, the new board boasts representation from central Oregon (which falls within AIA-SWO’s geographic footprint) for the first time in our chapter’s history. 

The 2014 AIA-Southwestern Oregon executive board members will be: 

• Will Dixon, AIA: past-president
• Scott Clarke, AIA: president
• Jenna Fribley, AIA: president-elect
• Dan Abrahamson, Assoc. AIA
• Seth Anderson, AIA
• Patrick Hannah, Assoc. AIA
• Alexandra Rempel, Assoc. AIA
• John Reynolds, FAIA
• And board member “X” (from the east coast, to be announced)

I have no doubt this group will exhibit considerable energy and enthusiasm during its tenure. I also fully expect it to demonstrate out-of-the-box thinking toward the achievement of its goals and resolution of the chapter’s ongoing fiscal issues. I truly am looking forward to seeing the new board’s agenda take shape. 

The November meeting also featured an enthusiastic report by a group of students from the University of Oregon’s Department of Architecture who attended the 2013 Solar Decathlon. For the first time since its founding in 2002, the biennial decathlon wasn’t held in Washington, D.C. but rather in Irvine, California. The event is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, which challenges collegiate teams to design, build, and operate solar-powered houses that are cost-effective, energy-efficient, and attractive. The winner of the competition (this year designed and built by a team from Austria, of all places) is the team that best blends affordability, consumer appeal, and design excellence with optimal energy production and maximum efficiency. 

The students presented images of the entrants they found most intriguing. These included the winning scheme from Austria, as well as projects by the Czech Technical University, the University of Nevada Las Vegas, and Team Alberta from the University of Calgary. 

The University of Oregon has conspicuously been absent from the roster of schools who have contested for the Solar Decathlon since the contest’s inception. The considerable cost associated with participating has no doubt played a part; another reason may be the competition’s focus upon active rather than passive heating and cooling strategies (for which the UO is renowned). An excellent article in the November issue of ARCHITECT magazine raises the question of whether the decathlon remains an effective means to advance the message of sustainability. Certainly, the article is on point by asking whether the freestanding, single-family home should be the focus of future decathlons rather than problems that might emphasize more typically urban issues: multi-unit and multi-generational housing, transportation, and infrastructure. 

The meeting’s marquee presentation was an exclusive screening of the film “Archiculture,” a new documentary by David Krantz and Ian Harris. The movie takes a critical look at the culture of the architecture school studio environment. It follows a group of students at the Pratt Institute in New York during their final semester as they spend their days and nights together toiling to complete their projects. Archiculture highlights the friendships, camaraderie, and peer-to-peer learning that occurs, as well as the insularity of the studio environment. 

The film also features an assortment of professionals, educators, and others commenting on the current state of architectural education and the continued validity of the studio model of learning and the benefits and detriments associated with the juried critique system. Among those contributing their insights are Shigeru Ban, David Byrne, Annie Choi(1), Maurice Cox, Kenneth Frampton, Tom Hanrahan, and Thom Mayne. 

Archiculture stirred fond memories of my years as a student at the University of Oregon. There isn’t a shared rite of passage quite like that of the architectural design studio. It is a life-changing, exhilarating, and horizon-expanding gantlet. Contrary to its detractors, I firmly believe the studio experience is essential to the development of effective problem-solvers capable of synthesizing a multitude of concerns. It should remain the core of every architectural school curriculum. 

Whether the studio and the culture it engenders should remain the center of an architect’s training was one of the questions posed to the distinguished panel assembled by the AIA-SWO program committee following the film’s screening. The panelists were: 

• J.F. Alberson, AIA – principal, TBG Architects & Planners
• Michael Fifield, FAIA – professor, University of Oregon, Fifield Architecture + Urban Design
• Regan Greenhill – AIAS president
• Gabe Greiner, AIA, LEED AP – graduate teaching fellow, University of Oregon
• Dan Hill, AIA – senior principal, Arbor South Architecture

Michael characterized the Pratt Institute’s approach to teaching architecture as “building-centric.” In his mind, this is limiting and fails to acknowledge the full breadth of influence tomorrow’s architects should participate within. After all, the built environment extends well beyond individual buildings to include entire neighborhoods, cities, and infrastructural systems. As Michael noted, “ill-defined problems are what architects deal with,” and it is precisely for this reason today’s education in architecture must be useful to designing much more than buildings alone. 

The dilemma for today’s schools of architecture is the increasing complexity and sheer volume of knowledge students must absorb in order to become effective professionals. Oregon’s strategy is to “teach design everywhere in the curriculum,” and also recognize the reality of collaboration in the workplace. From the audience, professor Don Corner pointed to the University of Oregon’s “shadow curriculum,” student-run ventures (such as CASL and AIAS) that supplement the formal course offerings. What the school must guard against is merely becoming a vocational training ground and abandoning its duty to graduate critical thinkers capable of solving some of the most intractable problems facing humankind today. 

Ultimately, the biggest takeaways from Archiculture may be its warm portrayal of life in the studio, the students’ zeal for architecture, and the quixotic prospect of making a difference. As one of the students at the center of the film remarked, “If you don’t care about this (architecture), what do you care about?” Indeed.  
         
(1) Annie Choi, a writer, is notorious in architectural circles as the author of a sardonic letter (“Dear Architects, I am Sick of your Shit”) to her friends and acquaintances who attended architecture school.

2nd Annual Eugene Gingerbread Competition

Entries in last year's Eugene Gingerbread Competition (my office's submission is in the foreground)

Design|Spring is hosting the 2nd Annual Eugene Gingerbread Competition & Auction on Saturday, December 14 at Oakway Center. A jury of local celebrities will judge the entries and award prizes in several different categories. Judging will be based on the creativity of approach, quality of construction, and observation of the rules. The awards may include, but are not limited to: People’s Choice Award, Best in Show, Most Unusual, Most Economical, Most Innovative use of Materials, and Most Accurate Recreation of an Existing Building.

Here’s the schedule of events for December 14: 

• 10:00-11:00 Entry Drop-Off
• 10:00-5:00 Viewing, People’s Choice Voting, Silent Auction Bidding
• 11:00-12:00 Official Judging
• 12:00-4:00 Live Reindeer in the Heritage Courtyard
• 1:00-2:00 Choir in the Heritage Courtyard
• 4:00-4:30 Judging announcement and awarding of prizes
• 5:00-6:00 Tastings
• 5:30-6:00 Auction announcement and wrap up
• 6:00-7:00 Entry Pick Up (entries may be claimed by appointment after the 14th at The Octagon, 92 East Broadway in downtown Eugene)

The competition isn’t limited to only those who are master builders or architects. Everyone is welcome to submit an entry!  Last year’s display featured eighteen colorful confections composed of candy, frosting, and gingerbread. My office—Robertson/Sherwood/Architects—assembled a sweet interpretation of a wintry Rockefeller Center in New York, complete with its iconic Christmas Tree. We had a great time conceiving and executing our design. This year, Design|Spring is hoping for and expecting even greater participation, so start making your plans now and register to enter. Don’t wait too long: you need to submit your completed registration form before the deadline on Friday, December 13. The first 50 entries will be given a space in the competition. To register, go to www.eugenegingerbread.com and fill out the registration form.

As added motivation to participate, the proceeds of this year’s silent auction (featuring those gingerbread creations donated for the cause) will benefit both Opportunity Village Eugene and Design|Spring.

If last year’s competition was any indication, the 2nd Annual Eugene Gingerbread Competition & Auction is sure to be a resounding success. Kudos to Design|Spring for directing its energy and enthusiasm toward the creation of what I am sure will become a lasting and delightful holiday tradition in Eugene.  
  

Life Space

The following is yet another excerpt from one of the many iterations of the late Bill Kleinsasser’s self-published textbook Synthesis. This selection dates back to 1970, and is perhaps his most unequivocal definition of experientially supportive design. Regardless, it only hints at the potential to create architecture that is stimulating, rich with diversity and choice, and full of opportunity. 

Bill struggled to successfully convey to his students the fundamental importance of how the buildings architects create are actually used and experienced; we were too easily distracted by the aesthetic and philosophical trends and fads of the period. Unfortunately, even today our profession is still too often beguiled by the latest shiny offerings from self-appointed taste makers. This is why returning to the basic principles that guide what architects do is important. Bill wanted us to always remember who it was we designed for and how the quality of the life spaces we designed for them support and enrich their lives. 

As a generative consideration frame for the design and analysis of the environment, LIFE SPACE is best defined as follows:

The precise network of facilities and spatial qualities needed to provide the opportunities and supports that people must continually have to be able to realize their full potential as alive human beings.

Each person's LIFE SPACE is a continuum and is part of a continuum. People's experience in the environment is continuous. Experientially at least, places do not exist as isolated units apart from other places; therefore, experiential support must exist in as much of the environment as possible, not just in some parts of it. Any specific LIFE SPACE must encompass at least some of the following scales:

• Personal living spaces: These include the inside of places of habitation (the most personal and private parts), together with spaces immediately outside which extend to varying degrees into the surrounding spaces.
• Intermediate places or rooms: These include all those frequently traveled paths, places, or sets of places that may not fit into the personal category but which are nevertheless important because people may usually spend much time there.
• Territory: This includes all frequently visited or frequently used places. It changes with time and varies according to time. For example, a person’s territory for one week will probably include fewer places and less space that the same person’s territory for one month or one year, etc. Also, one’s territory for one period of time may not be the same for another period of time. 

LIFE SPACE includes much more than places of habitation. A fine house, if set in a desert, would be an impoverished life space for most people most of the time. On the other hand, a modest house together with a diverse, facility-rich, and accessible place would be a reasonably supportive life space for most people. It is clear any specific LIFE SPACE must include: 

• The facilities, services, equipment, and dimensional relationships that may be needed for the physical, psychological, social, and cultural well-being of the people involved. This means that there must be a precise arrangement of transportation and communication support, medical care facilities, shops, places for meetings and social contact, play spaces, places for intellectual pursuit, places for wandering and solitude, places for wondering and contemplation, places for rest, places that are completely personal, places shared, etc. 
• Inasmuch as this part of LIFE SPACE involves “what” and “where” (but not “how”) it is possible to diagram it. Any specific diagram would show: places of habitation, required facilities, frequency of facility use, required facility grouping, required maximum distance from facilities to place of habitation, and path systems used most frequently. The diagram would need to be changed as circumstances change. It could emphasize one scale or all LIFE SPACE scales. It would identify critical areas for design; that is, those places and paths that are of special importance because people will be there very often. A diagram could be for one individual, it could be a composite diagram (overlapping many individuals), or it could be a group diagram (showing requirements for groups rather than individuals).

While the facilities, services, and relational characteristics of LIFE SPACE provide certain kinds of support, they alone do not ensure an experientially supportive environment. Each specific LIFE SPACE must also embody many relatively intangible or immeasurable structural qualities if it is to be personally meaningful for those who inhabit it. An experientially supportive environment implies by definition a place (places) that people will find good and right in the broadest sense. An experientially supportive environment will be challenging and stimulating, understandable, meaningful on many levels over time, full of opportunities for spontaneous involvement and innovative use, full of diversity and choice. 

It is clear that LIFE SPACE for one person is not necessarily the same as that for someone else. Because of the many variables in life circumstances, the same place may be experientially supportive for one person and unsupportive for another; or supportive at one time and not at another. 

It is also clear that a person’s LIFE SPACE must change as that person’s circumstances change. As a person exists in time, that person will become a new person many times over and consequently will need many LIFE SPACES. If that person stays in one place, that place will have to provide many different LIFE SPACES. 

These last observations suggest the need for many LIFE SPACES that coexist and physically overlap. In other words, whether because of the simultaneous presence of many people or because of changes that occur constantly, an experientially supportive environment must be tightly packed with diversified opportunities and supports. 

Finally, it is clear that the description of LIFE SPACES for individuals and groups will identify both the particular and the shared experiential supports needed by those people. This description of needed supports constitutes a criteria base that can be useful in several ways: 

• To make comprehensive and detailed analyses of existing environmental quality, identifying both desirable and undesirable characteristics. Such analyses will allow us to determine definitively when an existing place is superior to a proposed new one. 
• To make comprehensive and detailed evaluations of proposed projects in advance of their construction. Evaluation of proposed developments using this criteria base will show up narrowly conceived and unsupportive characteristics. 
• To generate new design proposals. The extensive criteria base which can be developed from analyses of LIFE SPACE will suggest not only many design ideas but areas for design and the need to be involved in many environmental scales simultaneously. At first, when little experience with this criteria base exists, design ideas will develop slowly but as experience accumulates the criteria base will become better understood and more ideas will come. These in turn will tend to both clarify the criteria base and expand it. Soon it will be possible to begin designing with a comprehensive and precious awareness of experiential considerations for any environmental situation. 

WK/1970