Reading this article felt like listening to HR talk about how they are reforming the corporate culture while realizing that I definitely shouldn’t have eaten the whole weed brownie.

Really, I get the impression that this is a distilled description of how sophomore architecture students should describe their toothpick-and-cardboard building designs in order to fulfill the university’s policy that all courses must include a diversity component. It’s all buzzwords and platitudes which can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways, which ultimately makes the whole peice useless, unless you want to point to some example or other that you personally like and talk about the Human Centered Design requirement while others sagely nod their heads.

I’m trying to imagine the weird edge case where any architect or designer would actually even get the chance to entertain these considerations. 90% of design work involves solving the big problems so that it fits in a budget. Then 10% is spent trying to make it look nice enough for people to not completely hate it. Where are designers and architects given such a carefree budget that they get to wring their hands over the potential comfort of a rural pakistani villiager entering their space? And if you are building something for people to use, you can just ask them what they want.

Hi there! I’m not sure if this is the right community for this post, but I couldn’t find anything on my instance that was discussing human-centric architecture, so I found this one.