It is worth discussing some of the standard objections that are raised to the Integrated Design Process. The objections usually are phrased as the following: “We’ve always done IDP” – That may be true, and if so, keep doing it. Usually the people who say this, however, have remarkably few green buildings to show as evidence.
“If you want me to do something different, that implies I’ve been doing it wrong all these years” – Well no, it doesn’t. This is the 21st century, with an entirely new situation for human society, and new problems and demands for the profession to respond to. Think of IDP as a new tool to add to the toolbox to address this new situation.
“The client won’t pay for it” – Possibly not, especially the first time when the value has not been demonstrated to the client, but that’s exactly what is the intent of NRCan’s Commercial Building Incentive Program.
“It affects the schedule and budget” – It may do, but the benefits should more than outweigh the impacts. Experienced teams are finding that the time spent is merely shifted from the latter stages of the design process to the earlier stages. Design costs may or may not be greater. It depends on how well the team manages the project and captures inherent synergies. It is not as if traditional projects always come in on time and under budget. The BC Cancer Agency’s new laboratory in Vancouver, a LEED Gold building, was designed with an IDP process and came in on time, and $10 million under the $100 million budget.
“It means a loss of creative control as an architect” – Not from what I have observed. After all, what generates more creativity—a blank sheet of paper or fitting the program to a tricky site? An integrated design process often generates more creative ideas and solutions. A good analogy is that the architect goes from being a soloist to being the conductor. In any performance the conductor is always visible, and wears a different suit and often his name is in the spotlight. Reviewed by Moishe Alexander.