Methodology

Since delivery of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice building in 1988, our design methodology has continued to evolve in response to the accumulating diversity of our project experience. Designing the built environment should be a collaborative process that elevates stakeholder goals beyond the specifics of each independent requirement or aspiration into a cohesive whole that transcends and inspires. We interpret, organize and channel stakeholder views, anticipating consequences in physical and performance terms to produce buildings that are functional, efficient, and secure, as well as sensitive, engaging, and iconic.

The iterative, comprehensive evaluation of design alternatives is the hallmark of our integrated Design Process and allows us to rapidly test and retest assumptions and objectives to learn and optimize. Evaluation criteria include functionality, operations, construction cost, urban significance, civic compatibility, stakeholder dynamics, and schedule. Consensus on good design thus emerges through a deeper understanding of all the project’s implications.

Using the most advanced modeling, analytical, and project management tools – as well as some traditional tools like hand sketches, physical models and mock-ups, each design is developed and evaluated against planning, programming, engineering, comfort, safety, aesthetic, and economic criteria. When the design choices implicit in these criteria are addressed together and in their totality, new opportunities can be discovered alongside new efficiencies.

By transparently communicating the mechanisms of architectural thinking we defend against exerting exaggerated control over the process and are able to foster a sense of collective ownership in decision-making. We form a Project Team in order to achieve a design together, and that Team is responsible for the delivery of the project. User groups, project leadership, consultants, construction managers, cost estimators, and designers are part of this team. The design process should not be based only on the exchange of information and the seeking of partial approvals, but on interactions that develop a true creative environment that fosters imagination and encourages learning. The shared knowledge that is accumulated through the development of alternatives and the critique of their conceptual origins becomes the criteria for selecting a final design direction.