Finding Design Freedom in the Space Adjacency Matrix

An important result from a space adjacency analysis is the linkages between spaces that you find.  Spaces that are linked can often be treated as single units when you begin functional design or conceptual design.  An equally important finding is the lack of linkages.  White space in the adjacency matrix means design freedom; few constraints in how components can be arranged.

Imagine a client who wants a dining area, a conversation area, and a pool area.  Within each of these spaces are sub-spaces.  The dining area in this example is to have an outdoor kitchen and the table / dining area.  The conversation area needs to include a large gathering space around a fire pit, a table for games or a small group, and a smaller more intimate area for more individual or casual use.  The pool area must include the pool, pool equipment/storage space, lounging area, a cabana, and potentially other amenities such as a pool area kitchen/bar and outdoor showers.

The space adjacency matrix for this project would list the elements individually because they serve different functions.  However, if you think about it, every component of the pool area is going to have high adjacency requirements with all other pool components because everything is associated with the pool.  The conversation area with its three areas is also linked as are the dining area components.  The space adjacency matrix will reflect these relationships:

Initial Space Adjacency Analysis

What we are seeing is the interrelationships of the three areas and also a lot of white space.  Large areas of white space in a space adjacency matrix usually mean a lot of design freedom to position and arrange the areas.  On the surface you would think we are dealing with the relationship between three spaces not a dozen sub-spaces.

We could think about how we are going to functionally position and arrange these three spaces as large units.  However, you cannot entirely eliminate the details of arranging the individual components either.  There are a couple of issues to consider.  First, one or more individual components of the large space may require special attention or have a negative adjacency relationship with the other spaces.  A prime example of this is the pool equipment.  We don’t want to position the pump, filter, and heater near the other entertaining spaces.  If we update our adjacency analysis to reflect this, we can see that we still have quite of bit of white space to work with:

Space Adjacency Analysis with Specific Negatives

Second, you can perform space adjacency analysis within each of the larger components, but it is difficult to know how to functionally arrange those components without having an idea of the overall functional arrangement.  The white space we are dealing with effectively represents the relationships between the three areas.  Those areas need to adjoin one another in some form so they are contiguous.  If we highlight our space adjacency analysis with the portions of the matrix that impact each of the three areas we get a better sense of how they are interrelated:

Space Adjacency Analysis Highlighting Areas of Design Freedom

This becomes a chicken or the egg problem.  It would make sense to work on the overall functional arrangement first and then deal with the functional arrangement within the individual space components.  However, you still have to look for those negative relationships between the larger spaces that are created from the specific functional space components (i.e., the pool equipment).  At a macro level we have three space adjacencies to deal with.  Within each of those three spaces we have micro level adjacency issues.  Those micro level issues impact the macro level.

The problem we have not considered at this point is the client’s preferences.  In this particular example the three spaces each has the potential for having a fair amount of client preconception as to where the space should be.  The pool is an obvious example of this.  Many clients are going to want the pool prominently positioned so it is the first thing you see when you enter the space.  A few clients may feel differently and want the pool away from the main entertaining area, visible, but not integrated into the other areas.  Most clients are going to want the outdoor kitchen and dining areas near the house to facilitate food preparation and serving.  The conversation area is probably less likely to be subject to predisposition unless there is a particular place in the area with a great view or attractive is some form or fashion.  All of that white space gives us a high degree of functional design freedom within the constraint of how the client plans to use the space and how they see the space relationships.

Space adjacency analysis is not a science.  There is a fair amount of logic and common sense in the process.  You don’t put things next to each other that conflict.  However, you have to also think about the adjacency from the standpoint of the client’s preferences and perceptions.  As a designer you can figure out what makes sense and what does not.  The art is in understanding how the client wants the space to feel, perform, and look.  However, neither of these steps, logic or client preference, are mutually exclusive.  Nothing in the continuum between art and science precludes creativity.

When I first looked at this project the first thing I saw was the potential to integrate the outdoor kitchen with the pool area kitchen / bar.  There is a lot of potential to not only save the client money but also create a dual function space that could actually be used independently or in tandem.  As great as this concept might be it is subject to the client’s feelings and preferences regarding placements.

The link between validation and analysis is understanding and knowledge.  We have to know what the client wants and we have to use our experience and knowledge to analyze the needs and make appropriate design decisions.

The Design Parti – A Communication Tool

A concept that I have been intending to write about for some time is “parti”.   A parti is usually a sketch, diagram, drawing, doodle, or some other graphic that represents the direction, concept, or theme of a design.  The concept of parti is common in architecture.  It is also used in other design disciplines.  It is seldom mentioned in conjunction with landscape design however.  That is part of the reason why I have not written about this concept until now.  The other reason is that a parti is a vague concept.

A parti diagram does not necessarily represent what the design will look like when it is done.  It is usually not a polished diagram.   It can be very rough; the proverbial back of a napkin sketch.  Parti has been defined as “the big idea”, “the central concept”, “the essence of the design”, “the design approach”, “the core element” and numerous other ways.  In almost every case a parti is described as conveying the meaning, form, direction, essence, scheme, approach, or some other aspect of a design.  If you are confused about what a parti actual is, I was too initially.

The first thing that was unclear is when in the design process a parti is actually created.  The answer is that you create a parti after you have some analysis completed.  You have to know where you have opportunities and where you have limitations.  You have to know the client’s requirements.  You should understand what functionality you need to provide.  You should have created at least some bubble diagrams and prepared an adjacency analysis.  In most cases a parti is going to come after some level of form composition analysis also.  You may create several form compositions that you evaluate as potential starting points for your design.  That being said, creating a parti comes after having a thorough understanding of the site, the client, and the functional and spatial aspects of your design.

The second confusing aspect of a parti was how it fit into the creative or generative portion of the design process.  A parti is described as a vision and/or an inspiration.  A parti is also shown as being a result or an output of one or more design concepts.  Creating the parti comes after developing conceptual designs.  Your source or inspiration for your conceptual designs may come from the site, the surrounding area, the client, the environment, or some other source.  Your client may have a love of camping that leads you to develop a concept based on nature.  The client residence may be of a Spanish style architecture that leads you do develop a Mediterranean theme concept.  There a numerous possibilities.

So what exactly does a parti do?  Why should you create one?  I think a parti is a communication tool.  It communicates the intent of your design concept.  In A Visual Dictionary of Architecture (1995), Frank Ching defines a parti as “the basic scheme or concept for an architectural design represented by a diagram.”  The parti should communicate something about the form as well as the concept.  Ideally, your parti will communicate the experience you intend to create.  It should depict something about the functional, sensory, and/or emotional aspects of your design concept.

I am not convinced a parti has to be a diagram or sketch.  A picture, an object, maybe even a simple storyboard may serve the purpose of a parti.  Which leads to the second question; why create a parti?

Anything that we can create that will make conveying our design intent to the client easier and more effective is a good thing.  We all live in a world of headlines.  We are flooded with information.  We scan e-mails for important subjects.  We skim newspapers for headlines.  The 30 second sound byte is the norm.  Imagine the power of a diagram or simple graphic that you can show the client and they will immediate see what you want to do.  Maybe your plan view does that.  Or maybe you created a perspective illustration that conveys everything the client needs to know.  You may not need a parti in every design.  However, if you can create one, it would certainly add value to your client presentation.

There is one very important difference in how and why a parti is used in architecture versus landscape design.  In architecture the designer is working in a third dimension in creating a building or structure.  That is not to say landscape design does not involve height or structural elements.  The mass of a structure just does not impose upon our designs the way it does in building architecture.  This is why I think our use or interpretation of a parti can be different.

As I said earlier, a small storyboard may be what you need to convey your parti.  Maybe there was an object or something that you saw that inspired your design concept.  A picture of that object may be your parti or a part of it.  Maybe one of your form compositions can be modified to express more fully the design concept.  Again, what we are looking for is a communication tool.  The format or media does not really matter.

One last point about the value of a parti.  I have read in several places that a parti should “anchor the design”.  In other words, when a design issue or question arises, you should be able to go back to the parti for answers.  In other posts I have mentioned the value of graphic tools such as a client profile, journey boards, inspiration boards, etc. to facilitate the design process.  A parti can serve the same purpose.  It communicates the intent of your design concept to your client.  Having your parti in front of you while you are designing will serve as a constant visual reminder of your design intent.

What if Design Validation Doesn’t Work?

What happens if your design validation efforts do not produce an acceptable design.  How do you deal with a situation where your design misses the mark; the client does not like it or they don’t think it will work for them.  Everything I have been put forward in this blog has been focused on making sure you understand the client, knowing what they want and need, analyzing the data, and making sure you are focused on what really needs to be done.  What if the client is not impressed and just outright says it is not what they want?  How do you recover?  Can you recover?  What went wrong?

Following a design process increases the likelihood of success but it does not guarantee it.  The design validation process requires you to do your due diligence and ask questions, research, analyze, evaluate, synthesize, and draw conclusions that lead you to a design concept.  It does not guarantee that the design concept is correct or will be accepted.  It is still possible to have miscommunications with the client.  It is possible to misunderstand.  It is even possible that the design concept is just wrong.  It is more likely that something else is going on, which I will come to below.  A major component of the design validation process is client communication.  Involving the client early and often avoids surprises and disappointments at the end.

I tend to think clients reject a design for one of three reasons.  First, something happened.  The client lost their job or has some other financial emergency and they want to cut their expenses.  Second, the client has buyer’s remorse and wants to step back and rethink what they are doing.  Third, they truly don’t like what you created or do not think it will work.

In the first case, you may have some clue if something happened.  There may be cases like the current economic situation where everyone is cutting back.  If you suddenly find the client is available at any time of day, that may indicate they lost their job or something else is going on.  All you can really do is be honest with the client.  Ask them if something happened or if there was a change in their situation.  You can point to all you have done for them and say that you have made a good faith effort to understand what they want and tried to design something that would meet their needs.  Depending on the client, this may or may not work.

Buyer’s remorse is much harder to deal with.  You have to sense this as an issue.  If you have followed the process and have all of your documentation, you can walk the client through your findings.  You can point to what they said, what you found, how your evidence supports that the design will meet their needs.  You have to resell the concept and support it with what they said and what you found.  Sometimes this works and sometimes is does not.  Having good client management and people skills helps.  You have to be empathetic and understanding but you have to drive home your findings and what you have done to validate your work.  Again, constant communications with the client over the course of the project should have headed this issue off.  Pre-design review of the design program and preliminary designs should also help curtail this problem.

In the last case where the client truly does not like the design and you have no other evidence to indicate any other issues, you have to find out what went wrong.  There are many ways this situation can play out.  If the client really feels your design is totally off base they may be angry and feel you have wasted their time and money.  Occasionally a client may feel remorse that there was something they didn’t convey to you or that they didn’t give you enough guidance.  The first step in understanding what went wrong is to deal with the current state of the client.  If they are angry, you may have to let them cool down.  The only way to find out what does not work in the design is to talk through it.

To talk through the design you have to go back to your basic interviewing and questioning skills.  You need to find out what the client does not like or what they think will not work.  If you have done all of the background research and analysis you can most likely argue any point they raise.  However, you don’t want to get into an argument.  What you are looking for is a way to modify the design so that it is acceptable or to help the clients convince themselves that the design is right.  Many times the client is too close to their own situation to see what they really need.  They may have asked for something directly or indirectly without realizing it and when you provided it, they were taken off guard.

There are many permutations of things that can happen, how clients will react, how a follow-up discussion will go, etc.  It is easier to avoid the situation in the first place.  There is nothing you can do about a change in the client’s financial situation.  However, you can head off buyer’s remorse and head off clients rejecting your design by following the validation process and maintaining regular client contact and communication.

Design Boundaries and the Validation Process

Design is partially an opportunity to make sense of something.  It is a chance to understand an environment, a space, a client, and a myriad of other things related to the project.  Design is also an opportunity to change something.  In the case of landscape design, that something is usually the space.  You can seldom change the environment.  You can disguise or enhance it, make it more attractive, make it more pleasant, and work within its constraints in other ways.  You cannot change the context of the site.  A space is located within the confines of its neighborhood, community, etc.  Although you might be able to change the client via education, logic, and reason, that usually isn’t our primary focus.

Analysis is the part of design where you make sense of things.  You are looking at the client, context, environment, and everything else that might possibly affect your design.  A fundamental part of analysis is determining boundaries.  Those boundaries are where you cannot change things.  They limit you.  They constrain you.  They challenge you.  They test your design creativity.  Analysis is learning and knowing everything you can about a site and client and it is also knowing where your boundaries lie.  What can you not do and what can you not change.  There are multiple boundaries.  There are the physical boundaries of the property.  There are the contextual boundaries of the location.  The client’s taste, preferences, and budget impose boundaries.  So where is the room for creativity?

The design process and design product are intertwined but two very distinct things.  Knowing what is within your sphere of influence and what is outside it is an integral part of the process.  Analysis helps you define the working space.  That is the making sense part of design.

Synthesis is where you start creating your conceptual design based on your analysis and your understanding of the boundaries.  What can you create that meets the functional requirements and works within the constraints and boundaries that you face?  Can you push a boundary or take it to its absolute limits?  Can you make a boundary inconsequential by creatively working around it?  Boundaries and constraints create challenges but they give us the opportunity to develop creative solutions.

Part of the design validation process is making sure that you have worked within your constraints and stayed within the boundaries that were imposed on you.  Your design program should have noted the imposed limitations, constraints, boundaries, etc.  However, you should begin validating against them during synthesis when you are developing conceptual designs.  Design validation is applied to the design to make sure that the design will work for the client and that the design does not exceed the project boundaries.

Can You Afford to Expand Your Perspective?

If you are use to working in plan view, you typically have a base plan that encompasses the client’s property or maybe just the space you are working in.  You will probably take into account what is outside the perimeter of that base plan through your site analysis.  You may try to capitalize on views or block them.  You may create barriers to wind or noise.  Those offsite elements are just not directly addressed in plan view.  You may discuss how your design takes advantage of the fabulous view behind the property in the client presentation, but that portion is “off the page” so to speak in terms of the plan view.

You can take the same approach with 3D designs.  You simply work with the client’s property or the specific space you are creating.  One of the factors I have mentioned previously about 3D design is the lack of background imagery.  You typically have a horizon line and a blue-sky background in the 3D site view.

However, what if you included the surrounding properties within your design space?  In the case of a client’s backyard, that would mean including the houses on either side, directly behind, and behind and to the left and right.  For a full client site there would be nine other residences to consider plus the street.  That is obviously going to increase your scope of work.  Even if you did very elementary design features on the other residences, there is still a lot of additional detail to include.  You could very easily obtain what you needed from public block plan records and digital pictures from your site analysis.  You would have the opportunity to include visual elements that the client with have to deal with when the design was actually implemented.  If the residence directly behind them has children’s playground equipment, you could include that in the design and show how you obscure the view of it.  The impact of neighboring trees on sun / shade patterns can be included because those trees would be part of your working design space.  The question is whether it is worth the effort to add all of these additional details.

First, I think the job has to be large enough from a revenue standpoint to warrant the additional effort.  Second, are the elements that you are trying to portray in the surrounding area worth portraying?  Are they truly important in your design response and important to your design presentation?  If one of your main design responses in preserving a view of the mountains that are miles away, there really isn’t anything you can realistically portray offsite as long as the view is not currently blocked.  On the other hand, if you are including design elements to block noise and visual distraction from a nearby intersection you may have reason to include space to that side of the client’s property.

Within 3D design software, you have the opportunity to present the view from any vertical or horizontal angle.  Expanding the area to include surrounding property allows you to back the view out to present how the design will appear from the neighbor’s perspective.  That may be important to some clients.

This approach is not something that is impossible to do in plan view.  You could do the same thing by simply expanding your base plan to include portions of the surrounding properties and include the design features that are important to your design.  The effect of the presentation just is not the same.  You do not have the 3D perspective view from multiple directions.  However, even if you attempt this approach in plan view, it is still a question of is it is worth it or not.

I know it seems counter intuitive to make extra work.  However, I think the results in terms of visually showing a client how you have considered the contextual problems and addressed them in 3D walkthrough would be dramatic.  Being able to back the view up from beyond the property line to show views of the landscape from the neighbor’s perspective is going to be important to some clients.  Obviously, the reverse, the view of the neighbor’s property, is important to almost every client.  Given that there is extra work in using the approach, I think the key to making it worthwhile is to establish two things.  First, what is the value in your design and design presentation in including the expanded area?  Is it going to create value and help you sell the design?  Second, what is the minimum amount of detail you can show to convey the issue and the result?  Can you easily get what you need to add enough detail to make the surrounding space appear realistic enough to convey your design issues and intent.

A very big portion of site analysis is looking at the context of the site.  How does it fit into it’s surroundings.  Including that context may make a lot of sense in some circumstances if the site context in crucial to the design response.

Elaboration / Reduction Cycles

Gathering client needs and site data is an exercise in elaboration.  We want to increase and expand what we know about the client and the site and we want to look for opportunities.  Those opportunities may come from the client’s lifestyle or interests, some aspect of the site, or from the context of the surrounding properties, neighborhood, etc.  After we gather data and uncover potential opportunities the analysis / synthesis process is an exercise in reduction.  We want to take all of the data and information we have, and reduce it to its essential elements; a set of prioritized and focused needs and requirements.  At this point, we begin another exercise in elaboration; exploring design concepts and possibilities.  Of all the opportunities and possibilities that are available, which ones will work best with our criteria and meet our needs.  Paring that evaluation down into a focused design solution is another exercise in reduction.  The diagram below depicts this process.

Elaboration Reduction Cycles

The transition points between elaboration and reduction correspond with the key validation points within the validation design process model.

Elaboration / Reduction Phase	Key Validation Points	Results
Elaboration	End of Data Gathering	All client needs and site data identified and captured
Reduction	End of Analysis / Synthesis	Focused and prioritized requirements
Elaboration	End of Creative Development	All potential design solutions considered
Reduction	Client approval of Design Program	Focused design solution

Iterative approaches to design are frequently perceived as being used strictly to refine, narrow, and focus the information we have and make design decisions.  However, part of the design process is exploration.  The elaboration portions of the design process are where that exploration occurs.  Effectively using reduction to narrow information and data into manageable sets combined with elaboration to explore design possibilities improves the results of the design process.  The transition points between elaboration and reduction also fit into the validation design process model and support obtaining what we need to validate the design as we move through the process.

The Analysis-Synthesis Interrelationship

One of the questions that arises in discussing the design process is the concept of Synthesis; specifically the analysis-synthesis relationship.  Analysis seems to be more universally understood; or at least people seem to think they understand it.  Synthesis is the gray area to many people.  What does it mean?  What is it?  How does synthesis follow or flow from analysis?  A common explanation of analysis and synthesis is that analysis is taking things apart and synthesis is putting things together.  Analysis is really much more than taking things apart.  Synthesis is more than putting things together.

In analysis, you can take a set of data and group or categorize it.  You can split it into more detail data.  You can merge it with other sets of data to see relationships.  You can sort or rearrange the data.  You can strip out portions of the data that have particular characteristics that you want to examine.  The list goes on.  The point being that analysis is a very rich and complex process that has many techniques that are useful in different circumstances.

All of the analytical techniques I have discussed so far provide you with data that can be used in making design decisions and developing your design concept.  A heat map, which is based on client priority rankings, helps you determine which features, spaces, amenities, etc. should have priority.  Form composition allows you to analyze layouts and find the best one for the site and the possible spaces you are considering.  Space adjacency allows you to determine how potential spaces should relate to one another.  Bubble or functional diagrams allow you to look at the ways specific areas can be configured based on your space adjacency analysis.  Each analytical tool provides additional information that helps you refine your decisions and move your design concept forward.  That is synthesis in essence.  You are building understanding and evaluating what you learn to refine your decisions and concepts.  You may develop information from an analysis that causes you to go back and rethink earlier analysis.  That is part of the iterative process.  The nature of the analysis-synthesis relationship is that the two techniques interplay and work with each other to accumulate information that is used and reused to develop your final design concept.

Other things come into play in developing a design concept.  There is the designer’s experience.  There may be a particular feature on the site that can be capitalized on.  The client’s may have a theme or style that they want used.  These are the soft data or qualitative factors that come into play.  They are part of the accumulation of information that is synthesized into the design concept.  They can be just as important if not more important than the data analysis in developing the design.  The analytical tools are the foundation for validation of the design.  They help answer important questions that are the crux of design decisions.

During the analysis-synthesis process, the results of analysis should be evaluated against the hard criteria established for the project.  This includes constraints, budget, feasibility, client needs, and all of the known limitations and opportunities.  Since synthesis is a much more fluid process, the results that come from the process are more evolutionary.  They evolve out of ideation, analysis, preliminary concepts, and other types of soft data.  The concepts that form out of synthesis also need to be evaluated.  However, the criteria is more aesthetic and conceptual.  Do the design concepts developed fit into the style and architecture of the residence?  Do they fit with the image and style we are trying to create?  Are they in line with the ideas that we had?  During either part of the process, analysis, or synthesis, if the answers are not making sense, it is time to step back and re-evaluate.  Again, that is the iterative process.

Design Process Model – The Creative Development Key Validation Point

The third key validation point is at the end of Creative Development.  Like the first two key validation points at the end of Data Gathering and Analysis / Synthesis, this is a threshold point to help you decide if you conceived a preliminary design that addresses all client needs, site issues and opportunities, and the elements in your design program.  The overlap with the Analysis / Synthesis phase is again built in to allow you the opportunity to conduct further analysis if you feel it is warranted.

Key Validation Points

The result or output of Creative Development is a preliminary design to be presented to the client.  This would include any supporting, collateral materials such as digitally enhanced photos, drawings, display boards, samples, etc.

Chances are that by this point you may have already started developing some of these materials.  It can be useful during the last part of Analysis / Synthesis to explore design concepts.  Any of these preliminary materials should be reused or revised if appropriate.  Otherwise, you can begin developing your preliminary design based on the results of the form compositions, functional diagrams, supporting analysis materials, and design program you have created.

Whatever you choose to develop and use in your preliminary design presentation should be reviewed thoroughly to validate that it supports your findings and conclusions developed to this point.  Some evidence of a need or opportunity that you discovered should support each element, feature, benefit, and aspect of the preliminary design.  Going through this exercise is extremely useful in preparing for the client presentation.  You will be fully prepared to explain and justify your design decisions.

A completely validated preliminary design sets the stage for the final phase of design development, which is the creation of your Client Deliverables.  Everything you have done to this point suggests that you have a design concept that should meet all client needs and expectations.  There should not be any issues that would preclude the client from accepting your design.  All of you preliminary design materials can be finalized for presentation to the client.  The preliminary design materials should be reused as much as possible in creating your final deliverables to the client.

Validating you data, analysis, conclusions, and designs minimizes the amount of rework you may need to do.  It is unlikely that the client will completely reject a preliminary design that is thoroughly validated against their needs and the specific requirements of their site.  Also, the high-level model provides for constant client contact and feedback.  Prior to the presentation of the preliminary design, there should have been client contact and feedback from the initial meeting and the review of the design program.  This would be the absolute minimum of client contact.  Interim contact and review sessions should be conducted whenever more information is needed of if it appropriate to obtain client buy-in and concurrence on specific issues.

My last three posts have dealt with the key validation points.  In the next post, I will be reviewing the client contact activities and how they fit into the key validation points and the four phases.

Suggesting Movement in Your Client Presentation

In design classes during the sessions on design development, they usually mention three techniques:  provide destinations, add mystery, and create journeys.  I frequently treat these three techniques as one.  For example, adding a path winding through the landscape creates the journey.  Adding a hidden bend adds mystery as to what is around that bend.  The seating area at the end of the path is the destination.  Blending the techniques creates one simple design element with many possible responses from those who use the space.  The problem is in presenting these potential responses to the client.  A two dimensional plan view doesn’t really do justice to the potential effect.

My thoughts to get around this issue are twofold.  First, 3D design software should allow you create the layout and then generate the 3D walkthrough for the client.  The second approach is to create a journey board.  A 2D plan view is mounted on the middle of a poster board.  At various points on the path, lines are drawn leading to depictions of what the client would see standing in that spot.  The depiction could be drawings, enhanced photos, or representative pictures from other sources.  The objective would be to lead the client through the landscape journey showing the elements of mystery and other features.  The final depiction would represent the destination.  Like any storyboard, addition softscape and hardscape features can be added.

The idea behind 3D walkthroughs is to show them onscreen in real time.  However if circumstances warrant, prints of the 3D view could also be mounted on the journey board.  A combination of the two approaches if you will.

Given that these are design techniques it isn’t likely that clients are going to have these on their list of requirements.  Although I have had clients ask for destinations like seating areas and/or pathways.  In spite of this, our design should still be validated to the extent possible.  There may be elements that you fit into the design that were requested.  These can be validated as meeting the client requirements.  Your design concept, presented as a 3D walkthrough or a journey board, can be validated through client feedback and comments.

Using either of these techniques allows you to simulate the quality of motion through the landscape.  The client can get a sense of what it will be like to walk the path and reach the destination.  This can be pointed out in a 2D plan view but it just isn’t as effective for soliciting a client’s reaction and approval.

Client Presentations – Don’t Forget Your Objective

Your presentation to your client is an important meeting and a key milestone in the project.  This is your opportunity to convince the client to implement your design.  You obviously should be prepared for the meeting.  You should know your material.  What were the driving client needs?  What were the critical site issues and opportunities?  How did your analysis help your find design solutions?  How does your analysis show that you are meeting the requirements?

You should have your presentation materials.  This can include plans, drawings, material samples, storyboards, etc.  This are the key elements in your depiction of their design.  You may have a formal report and/or a presentation.  Anything that you need to support your presentation should be gathered and readied.  If you are providing handouts or leaving copies, they should be prepared.

All of these preparations are obvious.  Your real focus should be on the content of your presentation, which is depicting what the client’s future reality will look like and how it will function.  It also includes justifying your design decisions.  This is not anything new.  As designers, we want to convince clients that our proposed solution is the best one to meet their needs.  Designers have been doing this for a very long time.  What should be new is the strong supporting evidence from your analysis.  This does not have to be direct evidence that you “enter into evidence” like a trial.  When you present your design, you should be able to reference back to things you discovered in your analysis that support the direction you took and decisions you made.

Sometimes the evidence may be so compelling you have to show it.  An adjacency matrix that is so focused on one area that is central to the design may become a crucial part of your presentation.  You just have to use it correctly.  Not every client is going to be receptive to the analysis.  They are looking for what their landscape is going to look like.  You need the visual representations such as drawings, models, elevations, etc. to convey that result.  No matter how insightful your analysis or how much time you put into it, if there is the least chance it will confuse the client, you should not use it.

Client presentations need to flow.  They have an objective, which is to convince the client to accept and implement your design.  Everything you use in your presentation should be there to support that objective.  Each component must move the presentation closer to the objective.  As you are compiling your material, ask why I am using this?  What does it contribute and communicate to my client?

You should also reverse this process and ask yourself what supports this view or depiction?  Why was it done this way?  Why does this meet the client’s needs?  The answers to these questions will come from your analysis.  That really is the heart of the validation.  The answers will also tell you if you need additional supporting material in the presentation.  In addition, those answers will prepare you for explaining your design concept to the client and answering their questions.

Challenges of Working from Reality to Abstraction to Reality

When we take on a project for a client, that client has a space that exists in a current state.  That will include any structures, hardscape, and softscape in place.  Other elements such as views, orientation, neighboring properties, etc. will also be in place.  This is the client’s current reality.  Everything we do going forward, including analysis, synthesis, ideation, conceptualizing, and so forth is with the intention of bringing the client a new reality.  Depending on the needs, existing state, budget, and other factors that change from current to future reality may be large or small.

There are two challenges in make this change a reality.  The first is that we have to create a design of what that future state will be.  The second challenge is to creatively depict that future state in a manner that the client can clearly comprehend and feel confident will meet their needs.  In both of these challenges we are working in abstraction.  We need to convert existing reality to an abstract design concept.  Then convert that concept into representations for the client to review and use to imagine their future reality.  Only when the client actually has the completed design built do they go back to a state of reality.

The first challenge, conceptualizing an abstract design concept is pretty much what we are expected to do as designers.  We take all of our available information about the client, site, and surrounding context, synthesize that along with our ideas and experience and conceive a design concept.  This is where I believe all of the analysis pays off.  If we have enough raw data from our interviews and observations and a substantial amount of generated analytical data, it should be much easier to determine where the “sweet spots” are within the design problem.  That really is what synthesis is all about.  It is seldom one or two things.  More likely three, four, or more elements from the client needs, client preference, site context, local environment, or some other factor will gel together into one of those insights that screams out “this will work.”

We build on that “this will work” moment to prepare the design for client presentation.  This second challenge is also difficult.  We have to select the right presentation format and views to give the client the best possible picture of their potential future reality.  What we want is a presentation that screams the same message that we saw in our insight, “this will work.”  There really isn’t any answer to this one.  It is a function of what the client is receptive to, what you as a designer are comfortable creating, and what will work in the presentation.

The presentation drawings, pictures, plans, samples, and other materials you use will vary from client to client and project to project.  You have to pick what will work for that particular design and project.  Ideally, your presentation materials should communicate the “this will work” message in a compelling manner.  It should support your analysis and synthesis of the data and show how you validated that the design concept will meet their needs.  The tools we have available now are much more powerful for communicating that abstract idea and showing clients what their future reality could be.  The presentation must also demonstrate the validation behind the idea and convey that the new reality will work for the client.

Finding Opportunities in the Three Spheres of Response

Traditionally, landscape design has focused on the functional and sensory spheres of response.  Those two spheres happen to be the most obvious and the ones that every landscape designer is trained to evaluate.  They are part of the designer’s initial analysis.  The designer evaluates the site and discusses the client’s wants and preferences.  How can you give the client what they want, functional, so that it looks good and matches their preferences, sensory.  The emotional response is still always there.  It just is not purposefully or directly addressed.  Every design evokes some emotional response in every visitor.  It may be a neutral response, but it is still a response.  By emotion, I am referring to a very broad realm of human response that may encompass feelings and thoughts that go beyond pure traditional emotions.

A second factor is the shear volume of design possibilities.  Within these two spheres, each taken individually, there are a vast number of creative opportunities.  Combine them and the creative possibilities multiply.  It is easy to look at only these two spheres and say, “I have so much to work with, I don’t need to consider anything else”.  The emotional sphere is left to happenstance.

The emotional sphere isn’t new.  It has always been there.  People respond to their environment in a range of ways.  Without purposefully addressing the emotional response a designer is ignoring an opportunity to add to the overall impact and impression of the design.

Confluence of Three Spheres of Concern

Within each sphere, we look for opportunities to create a design response.  This cannot be done out of context of the other two without loosing the power of combining all three spheres for greater impact.  We are going to look for potential ways to implement functional features with sensory impact that further stimulate an emotional response.  You might approach ideation from another direction; starting with emotion or sensory goals.  For example, how can I create or evoke the emotion of tranquility?  What functional and sensory elements will support or stimulate this?

Each sphere has a vast array of creative opportunities to offer.  Initially you filter or narrow those based on what you know about the client and the space.  Even with initial screening, the combinations of opportunities between and across the three spheres multiplies quickly.

Creating an emotional response of personal privacy, for example, has numerous possible design responses.  The functional responses might include isolating spaces visually, creating space barriers, or directing the view.  The sensory responses could include adding ambient sound from a water feature or adding distinct textures to create separateness through a different appearance within that space.

There are many opportunities within the overlaps in the spheres.  It doesn’t matter if you label or refer to them as sensory-emotional, emotional- functional, functional-sensory, etc.  The overlaps are a abundant source for ideation and design concepts.  The overlap of the overlaps, or the intersection of the three spheres, is where we are going to find and create the best designs.  That space is where all three spheres play in harmony.

Working in the Three Spheres of Response

I think the designs we create have to address three spheres of opportunity where we can create design responses that meet client needs and create client experiences.  Those spheres are Functional, Sensory, and Emotional:

The Functional sphere addresses the use of the space.  This includes active and passive uses.  What activities is a space used for?  What functions does it serve?  Is the space single-use or multi-use?

The Sensory sphere takes in the aesthetic and visual elements.  It is not limited to sight though.  This sphere includes textures that are felt, sounds that are heard, and scents in the air.  Sensational elements can come from within the site and from outside the site.

Confluence of Three Spheres of Concern

Traditionally, landscape design has been concerned with just these two spheres:  Functional and Sensory.  Very little is said or taught about creating an Emotional design response.  That is probably in large part because it is the most difficult to grasp, address, and incorporate into the design.  The Emotional component is about client response.  It is the human client response to your design and the way they experience that design after it is implemented.  That of course changes over time, from day-to-day, and sometimes even minute-to-minute.

An outstanding design meshes all three spheres.  The aspects of each are addressed and balanced against one another.  Where each of the three spheres overlap with the others there is a link, relationship, connection, or flow between the elements of those spheres.  The overlaps can be areas of challenge or opportunity.  In future posts I will be going into more detail about these three spheres and those relationships.