The AIA (National) Framework for Design Excellence (F4DE) and How It Applies to the AIA Potomac Valley Design Awards Program

By Scott Knudson, AIA LEED AP BD+C, AIAPV Design Awards Chair

Note: AIAPV will open its Design Awards portal for submissions later this spring. In response to member and jury requests, we have been clarifying our use of the Framework for Design Excellence in our design awards process. The following article, written by the Chair of AIAPV’s Design Awards Committee, addresses this subject.

Preamble: I chose architecture. I considered engineering like my friends, photography because I loved it, and being a Coast Guard helicopter pilot for exciting do-gooding. But only architecture uses the whole brain, balancing multiple ways of thinking. So, I chose it for its multi-faceted complexity (though honestly, if they didn’t require good vision, I might have gone the pilot route.) Decades on, I continue to love that to be great, architecture must succeed in many different ways, is experienced from multiple perspectives (both figuratively and literally), and both embodies and expresses everything from its budget to its historical context, its utility to its aspirations, its regulatory restrictions to its creator’s aesthetic philosophy, and as many other contrasts as you can identify.

One of the things that makes good design both difficult to achieve and difficult to define is that it is so complexly layered and holistic. Narrowing that perspective to the issue at hand—design awards—I think most of us can agree that it is a (luckily rare) embarrassment to the profession when architectural works receive awards but don’t meet codes—photos of handrail-less stairs come to mind—or function so poorly that they are despised or abandoned. If those works are beautiful, I see them as art, not architecture. Architecture is multivalent. This is the perspective with which I view the AIA’s Framework for Design Excellence: It is an attempt to imbue the Institute’s broader values into architects’ processes and into the design awards program.

Background: National AIA has established the Framework for Design Excellence to inform progress toward a zero-carbon, equitable, resilient, and healthy built environment. They use it to define the principles of good design in the 21^st Century. The Framework was initially developed by the AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE) for their own awards programs, and was eventually adopted by the national organization, who now requires all national-level design submissions to be represented through the lens of the Framework, and further requires the use of the Common App for design submissions, standardizing the process. AIA strongly encourages but does not currently mandate all state and local components to use the same Framework and application process. AIA Potomac Valley added the Framework to the Design Awards process in increments, first just referring to it, then asking that entries address several but not all of its components, and most recently establishing a separate PV Award for the project that best exemplifies the overall Framework. We do not require the Framework be used as a reporting tool for all projects, but strongly encourage entrants to address the Framework Principles that are relevant to their project.

Reception: Overall, the Framework has met with some resistance from local chapters and some members, including some highly awarded architects, and those whose practice is not institutional but primarily single-family. That is not surprising for a few reasons:

1. This is a change to the paradigm in which they have succeeded and now may face the possibility of new competition under an evolving paradigm.
2. This is a shift in values. That shift is intentional on AIA’s part, in alignment with their strategic plan, a key element of which is to deliver real action to help mitigate climate change.
3. Some individuals have a concern that the Framework could allow an ugly project that scores well on sustainability metrics to win over a beautiful project that does not clearly articulate its environmental benefits.
4. There is at least a perception that more intensive modelling, predicting, and measuring of environmental performance, which some elements of the Framework appear to request, is required by the Framework. These efforts (and sometimes additional consultants) are not financially supported by clients for smaller projects, so there is a concern that larger institutional projects will take the lion’s share of the awards, whether or not they represent the best of architecture.

Subjectivity: In the past, design awards have been judged on somewhat subjective issues such as the Vitruvian principles of commodity, firmness, and delight, or the Sullivan/Miesian balance between form and function, or contextual appropriateness, or whatever standards and values each juror elected to use. Some projects have been informally boosted in the deliberation rankings due to the way that the architect’s work had a positive social impact, incorporated energy-efficiency measures, preserved the historic fabric, or improved human health. The way these were presented by the applicant, and how they were weighed by the jury, was not defined. We all were used to that degree of subjectivity.

AIA Potomac Valley was repeatedly asked by some jurors and some applicants to define what good design meant to us and how it should be evaluated. Partnering with the other Maryland AIA chapters, we ask that, prior to meeting as a full group for in-depth discussions, each juror independently pre-score the submissions from three Perspectives:

Design Excellence – Does the design elevate the human experience while addressing the project’s practical needs?

Sustainable Design / Resiliency – Does the design take a progressive approach to advancing the missions of sustainability and/or resiliency?

Community Impact – Does the design provide significant improvement to its social or physical setting?

This remains subjective—a low score in any one category does not preclude winning an award—but rather serves as a discussion point for the jury.

The Framework, at first glance, appears to echo other sustainability tools we are familiar with: it breaks complex design issues down into categories. Furthermore, it reminds us of the measuring and point-scoring tools that have become common in many green rating programs.

In a way, we see the Framework as a more detailed refinement of our three Perspectives, as follows:

Where do we stand? Given the turmoil around this issue, AIA Potomac Valley has been reconsidering the benefits of defining design excellence as a multi-faceted issue, and how best to continue using the Framework in our program. We choose to use the Framework despite certain reservations. We see value in a broad view of design, and value the consistency across the various scales of AIA. We ask that the jurors and the applicants consider the following:

1. Ugly is as ugly does.
   We want no ugly winners, nor any shallow beauties.
   Entries should use images, diagrams, or text to discuss the aesthetics, the meaning, and the impact of the work.
   1. No project should win an award because it checks more boxes than other entries. The “boxes” of the Framework should only be used as a way to understand the project.
   2. We DO feel it is appropriate that this is not just a beauty contest—that the questions be deeper, and the buildings prove themselves on several fronts. Taken to the extreme, no matter how seemingly beautiful and creative, we would not want to give design awards to projects which don’t meet our responsibilities for safety, welfare, or human health, which drove the client to bankruptcy, which didn’t function properly, caused social strife, or damaged an ecosystem. Yet, we also don’t want to award mundane projects that succeed in those other arenas.
2. You aren’t my everything.
   No one project is expected to excel in every way, and some issues are truly irrelevant to some projects.
   Entries should use the relevant aspects of the Framework to explain their project, and not feel compelled to address irrelevant aspects. Filling the space with obscure vague language proves you have nothing to say and is worse than honesty. Feel free to add other categories that you feel may not be appropriately addressed by the Framework structure.
   
   
3. It’s not perfect.
   Entries should use the Framework as a way to organize your narrative anyway.
   1. The Framework doesn’t address ALL the aspects that define great architecture.
   2. The Framework is a bit clumsy, and the list is long. Ten topics (several of which are really subtopics of the broader sustainability objective) are seemingly given equal weight. It is too broad in its purpose, trying to serve both as a tool for use during programming and design phases, as well as a tool for judging the results.
   3. The Framework is rooted in COTE, and well serves their mission, but the fact that the word “beauty” (or its synonyms) only appears once suggests it is does not fulfill many people’s expectations as a standard for a design award.
   4. The Framework’s organization is overfocused on sustainability—roughly half of the items relate to that aspect of architecture, yet there are multiple issues that are blended into the vague principle of Design for Integration, and dozens of other principles that may be relevant to a particular work of architecture but are not mentioned.
   5. The Framework feels like a rubric. BUT IT’S NOT! It is a series of lenses through which the project can be better understood.
4. Size doesn’t matter.
   A low-budget bathroom renovation should be able to win a design award.
   The jury should consider that some projects, by their nature, have multiple consultants and are highly modelled and analyzed—and these projects can easily present impressive data and graphics about the excellence of their design. But that should not work against the architect who created magic out of thin air.
   
   
5. Stay subjective.
   There are forces afoot to make the Framework objective and establish definitive, potentially numerical, minimum thresholds of building performance on selected issues. We believe that limits the judgment of the jury and the applicant in deciding what makes architecture great. Good design should remain both individualistic and democratic, not dictated by a central committee.

Summary:

The Framework for Design Excellence can be a great tool to help organize your programming efforts with a client, establish the goals and priorities for the project, and tell the project’s story to the general public. It can also be viewed as a burdensome structure when its intent is misinterpreted. In AIAPV’s Excellence in Design Awards competition, we ask that entrants use the Framework to communicate the values and impact of their project, disregard Framework principles that do not apply, and stress the experiential and aesthetic aspects of the project that are integrated with the implementation of the various ethos’ of the project. We ask that jurors holistically consider the projects from the Framework’s principles that are relevant, recognizing creativity and beauty that is consistent with its purpose and place and that has a positive impact on ourselves, our society, and our setting.