It's not a linear process?

I was not able to get out--er, I am not able to get out--for a walk today. Though the weather is a gorgeous near-80 and sunny (as is customary for this time of year in Raleigh, I gather), I simply have too much to do. It is hard to multitask during a three hour walk. So perhaps next week?

Instead I'd rather gripe and rant about design and the practice of architecture; perhaps it will shed some light on my frustrations at work and, you know, in general.

If anyone has ever attended architecture school and subsequently worked for an architecture firm that holds design as an important selling point, they've heard this: "Design is not a linear process." This is usually said by someone higher up on the professional food chain when someone lower down is expressing frustration about being directed to undo and redo the same work many times over. I've heard it often. Very often.

On the face of it, I understand the statement. When we design, we cannot know all the implications of every move we make or how satisfying the outcome will be. So, in effect, design is a thousand mini experiments executed nearly simlutaneously that must be sorted out for their individual successes and failures when the experiments are over. In terms of architectural design, this means that we move a wall because it looks more right there than where it was but we also acknowledge that it works better over there and is more buildable over here, and in the end some weighting of all these factors will come together and the wall will be built in some place, but not before moving several more times for several more reasons. Executed my a proficient designer who can explain his or her methodology, the "nonlinear" design process takes this stew of uncertainty and applies values to it with the understanding that, at some point, the wall must be built somewhere and linearity must come back into the process to enable that. The experiments MUST END and you must GO FORWARD with DECISIONS and accept that further nonlinearity is not helpful.

I posit that the people who have constantly regurgitated "Design is not a linear process" are usually not these proficient designers but are actually capricious and indecisive. These people often cannot explain their methodology; despite mounting evidence that the wall needs to be "here" and not "there," they still hold out that "there" looks better and can be made to work when it cannot. And my role in this is usually to be launched on the wild goose chase for the linkage between why something is there and why it makes any sense, when it most often does not. And then to look bad when the linkage cannot be found. And then to be put on another chase immediately thereafter for why it didn't work any better two weeks ago.

But ok, fine, I'm just a disgruntled and frustrated employee who will find anything to be stressed about. So let's assume for a moment that all architects believed that design could be a nonlinear process and it could actually work without frustrating their own employees. What about the rest of the world? Architects aren't the only people who work on building buildings. What about clients? Engineers? Contractors? Do these people see any value in our nonlinearity? Because the process they're on in most definitely linear. In fact, there's a goddamn calendar up on the wall in the client's office that shows the project kickoff date and the date of building occupancy. That's pretty linear--he or she wants to see progress get made at each step. Things must always progress from being vague ideas and concepts towards being refined, detailed, and executable as built elements. What about the engineers? In my experience, the engineers must always be responding to our design intent with their technical systems. If we move a wall from here to there, we could invalidate their entire system design. That would sure make their process nonlinear as well. Actually, that would probably drive them to just wait us out... and not do anything until they knew that those walls can't move anymore. And contractors... whew. They don't like this nonlinear bullshit, because when you pay ten guys to nail some shit up on the wall, IT IS UP, and if some prickish designer decides he wants that shit over there instead, he better be ready to pay for it all over again.

Listen, this nonlinear process thing is a fiction, a myth. At some date, the architect hands over a set of drawings that becomes a legal contract. The date is fixed, and the legality is fixed. You may hash over and revise your ideas and drawings and move that wall back and forth a hundred times, but you ARE and MUST BE constantly narrowing the range of possibilities over time or else you are not engaged in an actual process. You're essentially jerking off and expecting a boat load of people who depend on you to watch in rapt awe.

If being a designer means that I should be capriciously fucking with what obviously needs to be a linear process, than fine, I don't have to be a designer. Nonlinearity really gives design a bad name.

P.S.: I guess what I'm saying is, every divergence from the path needs to either provide success or at least useful feedback that brings the design closer to a desirable outcome. To make a move that runs contrary to established design goals or does not bring with it at least the expectation of progressing the design in some range of value is a worthless waste of time. Even in a situation of infinite available time, who would want to be a part of THAT nonlinear process?