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.

How and When to Use a Prototype

Prototyping is a technique used in design, in many different disciplines.  The term is seldom used in the context of landscape design.  In other design disciplines, prototyping can be used to:

• Show a proof of concept
• Gather requirements
• Validate requirements
• Explore solutions or resolve specific design issues

Within any design discipline there may be several methods or approaches to prototyping.  The objective is usually the same; create a representation of the design objective to show how it will work and/or look.  The prototype may be a car, a retail product, an information system, an airplane, or a web site.  As I mentioned in my last post, prototypes, as a representation, have a fidelity or degree of realism.  Low fidelity prototypes are less realistic.  High fidelity prototypes often appear to be completed projects.

Fidelity is most commonly evaluated on two levels.  Visual fidelity or how realistic does it look, and functional fidelity or how realistic does it perform.  These two criteria are not mutually exclusive.  A prototype can have both high visual and high function fidelity.

How and why these two criteria matter is important.  As a rule, higher fidelity means more time to develop the prototype, which essentially means more cost.  Depending upon your objective you may be better off creating a lower fidelity prototype, quicker, at less cost.  In other cases, a high fidelity prototype may be needed.  A good designer will use the right fidelity prototype to accomplish the specific objective.

Prototypes can be applied at just about any point in the design process.  You can use them before the project is even a project as a proof of concept (i.e., there is room to build both a pool and a deck).  You can use them during the requirements gathering stage.  They can be valuable during design development.  A prototype makes a great sales aid during a client presentation.  Lastly, a prototype can even be valuable during the build or construction phase.

The question is, how does it apply to landscape design?  My next post will answer that question.

Prototyping – Does it Work in Landscape Design?

In the next couple of posts, I am going to be covering prototyping.  Prototypes are more than models.  They usually have a degree of functionality associated with them to help clarify the design concepts and implementation of the concepts.  I have been a big proponent of prototyping in information systems for many years.  I thought about prototyping briefly when I started this blog but it just did not seem to fit the way that I thought it might.

Two things made me rethink the prototyping issue.  First, I watched an episode of  HGTV’s Showdown.  In this show, two teams are given a miniature replica of a space to work with.  That space is based on a client’s actual yard and home.  They have a limited time to develop a concept and execute it.  The client walks through the result and judges a winner.  As I will explain in subsequent posts, working in a miniaturized space and working quickly to execute a concept for approval is what prototyping is all about.

Second, I was reading an article about prototyping in user interface designs.  The article dealt with the “fidelity” or realism of prototypes.  In many cases, fidelity is an issue that is specific to a domain.  Realism can be expensive.  You don’t build a full sized airplane model initially.  You start with small models to prove the concept.  The model may represent the visual concept but be very limited in its functionality.  In other design disciplines, it may be easier to represent functional capabilities and leave the visual representation open.

There are many issues here and I will cover those in the next couple of posts.

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.

A Prototype Landscape Design?

My last post dealt with different ways of portraying the client experience that will be achieved by the design.  In essence, we are looking for ways to depict to the client how the space will look and more importantly how it will function.  In many design fields, they create prototypes.  In landscape design we occasionally make models but we really don’t prototype a design per se.  The concept of a prototype has different meanings in different fields.  A prototype aircraft is intend to be flown.  A prototype data system may be simple display screens or output reports.  For our purposes, a prototype can also mean different things.

In my last post, I mentioned the low-tech approaches of painting, chalking, or staking off spacing so clients could walk through potential spaces and envision what they might look like and feel like.  This is a form of a prototyping.  However, it would be considered “low fidelity” meaning that it does not convey a lot of information to the client.  The more realistic a prototype is the higher its fidelity or ability to communicate function and experience.

It is very hard in landscape design to prototype in a physical way.  You can mark out spaces.  I have also seen sheets or cardboard used to mark off walls or railings.  We can get creative and move the client’s existing tables, chairs, and other accessories around to represent new layouts.  We can use cardboard boxes to represent new features or amenities.  All of these sound lame.  However, I think we can learn a lot from these types of low fidelity prototypes.  You can actually walk the client through a concept with some semblance of space, layout, and traffic flow.  If you can add any details such as furnishings, it is just that much more helpful.

Another approach is to walk the client through another client’s site if there is enough similarity to warrant it.  This tends to work really well in subdivisions where many properties are similar in terms of house styles, terrain, etc.  I would classify this approach as having medium fidelity because it is real and it is complete.  The degree of fidelity or realism is dependent upon how closely the site matches with what you are proposing for your current client.  It is unlikely you will have a one hundred percent match in terms of decor, layout, amenities, etc. but you may have enough to work with to get some solid feedback from the client.

A high fidelity prototype would have to be a complete match of an existing site that you can tour with your client or a design simulated with virtual reality.  I have seen the complete match concept work in new subdivisions where there are five or six different house choices and everyone is starting from scratch.  What one client does can be replicated for other clients with a similar house and/or lot configuration.  The material, color, and other aesthetic choices do not have to be the same, but the conceptual layout can be a prototype for other clients in the same subdivision.  In terms of using virtual reality, I have mentioned in other posts that I don’t believe we are at a point where immersive virtual reality can be practically applied.

The whole purpose of a prototype, if you are a designer, is to learn from your client.  Their feedback from the experience of the prototype is invaluable.  Prototypes allow you to show your ideas to clients in a way that allows them to get a sense of where you are going and to give you feedback on your ideas.  The prototype should convey a sense of what the design might be or could be.  It doesn’t have to be real or accurate as long as it conveys a sense of the concept and functionality.

This is not a common practice so you have to prepare clients for it.  You have to explain that you are exploring ideas, layout, concepts, etc. and that you need their feedback.  It is almost like imaginative play.  You are pretending but it a serious way.  Some clients will be more receptive to the idea than others will.  Some clients may actually get into it.  Imagine a client calling the neighbors over to stand in the new “virtual space” to get a sense of how it would feel occupied by people.  Your objective is to learn from any feedback the client offers.  Anything you can do to increase the fidelity or make the prototype more representative will only benefit you.

A Great Design Works for the Client

You have probably met with a client for the first time and had them tell you that they want their property, backyard, or whatever to look great.  Maybe they said they wanted their property to look as nice as the neighboring properties.  These are aesthetic requests.  I think they represent a common misconception about what we do.  Many potential clients assume that what designers do is decorate or enhance appearance.

One aspect of the validation concept is educating clients.  Working through the process and interacting with clients to understand their needs and requirements give us the opportunity to educate clients about functionality.  Design is about function.  What it looks like or feels like in important, but design should really address how it works for the client.  Good design is problem solving.  Sometimes the client doesn’t even know they have a problem.  Aesthetics may be part of the problem and part of the solution.  However, functionality and usability are the major problems most clients face.

Stressing function first assures that you are creating a usable space for your client.  Sizzle sells but functionality brings repeat business.  No matter how nice a space looks, if it doesn’t work for the client, they will never be happy with it.  Design for function first.  Create usable spaces that work for the client.  Then add the aesthetics.  You create a double win; a space that works for the client, and looks great too.

Stressing Function Again

My January 15^th post, A Priority on Function, stressing the importance of designing for function first.  I just found the following quote from Steve Jobs from the 2003 New York Times article “The Guts of a New Machine.”

“Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like.  People think it’s this veneer – that the designers are handed this box and told, ‘Make it look good!’  That’s not what we think design is.  It’s not just what it looks like and feels like.  Design is how it works.”

I find this a very compelling expressing of my passion which is to make sure that our designs will work for the client before they are built.

A Priority on Function

There are obviously many aspects to consider when gathering client requirements.  I sometimes think that there is too much emphasis on gathering client preferences as to aesthetics and not enough effort on understanding the client’s functional requirements.  I think design is essentially all about function.  The purpose of the space should direct and focus the design concept.  This is not to say that we should ignore aesthetic elements or not take advantage of a great view.  Those things just have fit and work with the functional design.

If you ask a client what their issues are that may say things like not enough space, lack of privacy, too much sun or shade, poor layout, and so forth.  Most of the time it is easy to get clients to talk about what they like and don’t like.  The usually have preferences for colors, materials, style, etc.  However, when you ask clients how they intend to use the space the answers may not flow quite so easily or they may be too vague for our purposes.  To really understand what a client needs you have to understand what they intend to do.  You should also consider how that might change over time.  Let’s look at some examples.

When a client says they want to use the space for entertaining you need detail about what that entails.  How often?  Formal or informal?  How many guests?  What time of day?  You need to get the client thinking about what their needs are as precisely as possible and covering all of their possible scenarios.  That family reunion that is coming up in a few years is not an immediate concern but it is something that could be addressed by designing slightly larger spaces and capacity to add extra seating areas.

Another example is play areas.  This type of space has to be defined by the types of play activity that will occur.  What are the ages of the children (or adults).  How many guests need to be accommodated?  What special space requirements are necessary?  Do you need level ground or are there constraints on overhangs?  You may also want to address temporary facilities such as a swing set that can be replaced by a pergola when the children get older.

Another example is the client who states they want a garden.  You might want to explore how serious they are about this.  Are they long-term experience gardeners?  Is this something they are taking up for economic reasons to reduce their grocery bill?  What do they intend to grow?  Gardening for food requires serious commitment.  Exploring their needs in detail is important to establish what functionality is required.

Sometimes functions cannot be addressed.  For example, a client that wants afternoon sun but their yard is shaded from the west by their neighbor’s house and long standing trees.  You have to explain to the client that the neighbor’s house is not going away and the likelihood of them cutting down the trees is low.  In this case, you should explore why they are making the request.  If you get to the root need, you may be able to find another way to meet their requirements.

Sometimes requirements can conflict.  For example, a client that wants privacy but still wants to enjoy the great view.  These types of issues require some creative thinking.  Another common issue is constrains; physical or economic.  Space is a common constraint.  In this case, the client has to establish priorities.  How do they want to allocate what space they have to get the maximum benefit and value?  Other times things just are not feasible.  A site on a hillside, with rocky ground, or large surrounding offsite trees will limit what can be done.  You have to work with the client to find alternatives that will work or to reset their expectations if they want something that just isn’t realistic.

With all this emphasis on functionality, I am not minimizing the importance of aesthetics.  I just think you have to drive the design with function first.  You can make the functional space you create aesthetically pleasing.  This also does not preclude having an early inspiration.  There may be something about the site, some aspect of the client’s lifestyle, or something that the client expresses interest in that gives you an early inspiration for a design concept.  I am simply suggesting that functionality should be dealt with first and then work on the aesthetic elements.

Developing client usage scenarios is an important and useful analysis technique.  Use can use these scenarios to test you functional designs to make sure they meet the client’s requirements.  Once you are sure you have met the client’s needs the aesthetic elements can be added to create a great design the really functions.

Gathering Data: Challenges, Irony, and Value

Part of the problem of using a more analytical approach to design is what to do with all the information and data you obtain.  How do you capture it?  How do you organize it?  How do you make sense of it?  It is ironic that as we move through the design process from the start we want to capture more information as we go further into the process.  This is the collection, expansion, and elaboration of data and information about the client, site, neighborhood, city, etc.  However as we move toward the end of the design process we want to distill that information into the key elements necessary to make design decisions.  We need to cull the data and information into the most important elements that will help us develop our design concepts and make decisions about those concepts.  This is a reduction process.

Just stop and think about all the data you can gather.  You will have notes from client meetings.  You may make sketches.  You may mark and note a copy of the base plan.  You may take digital photos.  There may be information about local climate patterns available, historical information about the neighborhood, native plants to research, local or neighborhood zoning restrictions to gather, and so forth.  Taking the client on a field trip may generate a completely new set of notes not to mention the possibility of material samples, potential softscape materials, etc.

The first question is how much information do you need to collect.  Spending time gathering information costs you time.  Time you could spend doing design, working with other clients, marketing, etc.  In every job, you have to make a decision about how much information you need.  At what point do you have enough information to make the best possible design decisions?

The second question is how do you record the information so that it is accessible and usable.  As noted above, there are going to be many sources of data and information.  They are likely to be recorded, captured, or available to you in a variety of formats.  What do you do with that collection of materials that will make it accessible, usable, and useful?

This leads to the third question, how do you organize, display, review, combine, correlate, and otherwise manipulate all this material.  What means do you use to capitalize on everything you have gathered?  What are the tools and techniques that you can use to see everything and see the implications of all the material?

Lastly, how do you reduce the data to its essential components?  What are the key elements?  How do you find those pieces in all of the material that combine to make the best design concepts?  What are the best approaches to focusing on the pieces you need to make design decisions that are right for the client and their space, and make it compelling and visually exciting?

I intend to explore these issues in more detail in upcoming posts.  Each of these issues is complex and has many possible ways of being handled.

Active / Proactive Design for Validation

My focus in this blog is the validation of landscape designs.  My intent is discover methods that will allow designers to make sure that designs will work for clients before any construction begins and in fact before the design is ever presented to the client.  As noted before, virtual reality, 3D graphic walkthroughs and time evaluation concepts are and continue to be a very interesting technique for achieving my goal.  However, given the current limitations of that technology and the other constraints, I have spent a lot of time looking at ways of attacking this problem through other means.

This blog was started six months ago on the premise of making sure that designs will work for our clients.  In reflecting over the sixty some posts so far, it struck me that what I am suggesting is to be more active and proactive in the design process.  I think I have been realistic in terms of making sure to point out where benefits can be realized.  I know many of the things I have suggested add to the time required to complete a project.  However, to balance this I have stressed reusability of work to speed the process and the benefits of highly satisfied clients.

The active / proactive design process starts with a focus on the client.  People first.  Design projects don’t exist without clients.  What do they really want?  What is it that they really need?  You also have to know what you have to work with.  Actively analyzing and understanding the client site provides the foundation for what can be created.  Validation fundamentally begins with these two steps.  Know the client and what they want.  Know what you have to work with.

Everything beyond this point is up to you.  What more can you do to create a design concept that will work for the client within their space.  What tools and techniques will you apply to the task to make sure you achieve that goal?  That is active / proactive design.  Again, this is the point where I am suggesting going the extra mile.  What additional information do you need?  What does the client need to see to move forward or make a decision?  The iterative design process I have suggested requires revisiting the client’s needs and site as needed throughout the design process.  Analysis of what you have may lead to new questions or a need to revisit the site for more evaluation.

Active design requires a higher degree of involvement, constant questioning, and analysis of all of the information gathered.  Design is all about function.  It also about the resulting experience the client obtains from their space.  Being active / proactive in the design process will produce the insights and information needed to create a design concept that is functional, completely meets the client’s needs, and provides an outdoor experience 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.

Positioning Spaces — by Function or by Location

Site analysis often uncovers or reveals spaces that are ideal for specific functions or should be capitalized on.  For example, a backyard view of a nearby lake.  Often the reverse is discovered.  There may be spaces that are noisy, windy, or hot.  We discover and document these situations during our site analysis.  Concurrently, we work with the client to discover their requirements.  With all of information gathered and documented, we begin analyzing and synthesizing data and developing design responses.

The question that arises is where and how to go about positioning spaces.  Do you begin with bubble or functional diagrams with interconnections and manipulate them into desirable locations and away from undesirable ones?  Or do you position spaces in desirable locations first and then weave in related spaces and connections?

The first approach puts emphasis on adjacency and function.  The later method puts emphasis on optimal placement as determined by site factors.  I do not believe that one approach is better than the other is.  Which you choose or if you use both is a personal choice.  What is important is that the design response be validated against the requirements.  If the requirements are not met, a new design response must be found.

A big part of analysis and synthesis is resolving conflicts.  In the previous example of an ideal lake view, it may not be practical to place a main patio or deck in a position to take advantage of the view.  The design response may become a destination terrace or seating area away from the main outdoor space connected by a walkway.

Coming to a final design solution requires thorough site analysis, full understanding of client requirements, thoughtful analysis, and the patience to synthesize all of the data.  That done we use our knowledge of design to create and test responses that meet the requirements and pass the constraints and opportunities developed through our analysis.

The positioning of spaces or functions is less a matter of how and more an issue of why.  Validation tells us why we made that decision.

Validating the Aesthetic Elements

A few days ago I was explaining what this blog is all about in a conversation.  When we finished talking about the blog’s premise, it occurred to me that almost everything posted so far has dealt with functionality or usability of the site.  Nothing has been said about the aesthetic aspects of a landscape design.  Looking at a design from the perspective of validating that the design will work for the client, meet their needs, and provide the value they are seeking is probably easier to explain and theorize about how you might accomplish it when you consider the way people with use it rather than how it looks.

The aesthetic factors are obviously a lot more esoteric.  You have to consider what the clients asked for that can be validated.  Was it beauty, a particular style or color, or maybe a particular type of planting?  Beauty or attractiveness is very subjective.  Specific requests for a color or type of plant are more concrete and can be reviewed against the design program or the notes from the client meeting.  When the client asks for ease of maintenance there is a certain amount of subjectivity in measuring that.  Just as important, you have to consider that the client’s requests may not be appropriate for the site due to sun/shade, water, soil, deer, and other considerations.

The landscape design that is proposed needs to be evaluated against some criteria that is measurable from the standpoint of meeting a specific client request or need.  The actual measurement or validation should be specific and not open to subjective interpretation.  Some of the techniques and methods I have suggested for usable spaces have made use of analysis techniques to make sure that the client’s needs are being addressed.  I think the same approach is warranted.  Whatever aesthetic design elements are proposed need to come from careful analysis of any client requests and from the evaluation of the client’s site.  The resulting synthesis of that information can be applied to the proposed landscape design through the use of basic design principles and appropriateness of materials.

My initial thoughts about the use of 3D virtual reality had me thinking conceptually about the ability to show a client what the softscape materials would look like seasonally and over the course of several years.  The ability to computer generate time span scenarios would be very useful for showing seasonal changes and growth over time.  Some of the desktop software packages for creating 3D renderings have these capabilities.  VizTerra is one package that I have mentioned previously that has the ability to show growth and size changes in the 3D renderings.  I think these types of packages are worth considering from the standpoint of portraying how planting changes will appear over time.  There are other options available.  Storyboards showing major plants in various stages of their lifecycle would be one approach.  Creating a planting list with color palettes by season would be another.

Various approaches to validating aesthetic elements will be included in future postings along with additional techniques for validating the functional components.  I believe both sets of elements can be validated by applying appropriate analysis techniques and applying that information against the initial requirements and site analysis data.

Notes and Updates to July 2009 Posts

When I began looking at this idea of validating landscape designs, I envisioned a scenario where the designer would provide the client with an opportunity to fully experience the proposed design.  3D virtual reality was one possible solution.  My research led me to believe that this is being done in other fields but it just is not practical in its current form for landscape designers (See my July 1, 2009 post “The Trouble with Virtual Reality”).  Last week I had the opportunity to look closely at a new landscape design package, VizTerra by Structured Studios (http://www.structurestudios.com/website/vizterra/vizterra.html).  It is one of the best desktop design and 3D rendering packages I have seen to date.  I was impressed with the flexibility, control, and power.  The output renderings were extremely good and the designer can use the computer mouse to “walk” through the design changing the view.  VizTerra comes the closest to what I envisioned in a desktop software package.  It does not have the usage scenarios support that I think are extremely important in evaluating functionality.  However, once proficient in VizTerra a designer could create very powerful, compelling designs and walk clients through all of the elements and perspectives.

In my July 26,2009 post, “Before Drawing Look at Adjacency” I discussed the square and triangular formats.  A couple of notes to clarify some points.  First, the square matrix format can also be set up with the areas or components listed down the right side and the relationship or proximity code categories across the top.  This format eliminates the overlapping categories I mentioned in the original post.  A better name for this matrix using this alternative format would probably be Adjacency Relationship Matrix.  Second, the triangular format can also be called an “interaction matrix”.  The underlying purpose of the adjacency analysis is to uncover interactions between components.  The entire analysis could also be called an Interaction Analysis.