design is everything: michael graves and medical equipment

michael graves, image: michaelgraves.comSomehow, I missed the fact that architect and designer Michael Graves has been paralyzed from the mid-chest down since 2003. This is not exactly urban planning news but in this 'recommended reading' interview, Talking with Michael Graves by Camille Peri for caring.com, which came to this blogger's attention via Urban Planning Blog, his keen perspective on design matters affecting those with physical challenges is illuminating and cautionary.

It makes me wonder about the intersection improvements currently being undertaken in the city by the Corporation of Hamilton. I don't know who in Bermuda is consulted on such matters but I would be interested to know whether blind, deaf and or physically disabled people have been invited to comment on the improvements made to date. More importantly, were they consulted prior to the implementation of said improvements?

Michael Graves is likely best known to most people for the range of productsalessi family of products, image: michaelgraves.com he designed for Target. These sleek household products introduced 'cool' to the masses and, to date, Michael Graves Design Group has brought to market more than 1,800 consumer products.

As an architect, he is known for the early days of the postmodern architectural style, designing such iconic buildings as the Portland Building (completed in 1982). A somewhat divisive building - you either love it or hate it - it did achieve renown for having an enormous impact portland building, image: unknownon American architecture in the eighties. It was added to the US National Register of Historic Places in 2011.

More recently, Graves's design and architectural practice has expanded in new directions to include a partnership with Stryker Medical to design patient room furniture, and a commission by Clark Realty Capital to design single family homes for wounded soldiers, and their families, who continue in military service at Fort Belvoir, VA.

Michael Graves is paralyzed and in a wheelchair now but the world is likely a better place as a result of his unanticipated new direction and contribution. Design matters.

'shedworking' - the next best thing after the container office

image: booths garden studiosStill seeking a quiet home office that is not actually in your home? Do you appreciate a stroll to the bottom of the garden at the beginning of your work day? Would you prefer a home office made of materials that did not previously sail the seven seas?

Shedworking may be the option for you. Wireless internet connections and cell phones make the shift to the garden a realistic and easier choice. Like a reused container, a shed can be made out of recycled materials or you can just buy a kit. Pre-fab sheds are not yet approved by Bermuda's Building Materials Committee but that should not stop an entrepreneur from investigating their possible importation.

To put to rest a common misconception: wooden buildings are allowed in Bermuda, they just need to comply with the building code. At a minimum, a concrete foundation will be required.

So what are the shedworking options? image: booths garden studiosA UK company, Booths Garden Studios, has basic units that retail between 4,000 and 10,000 pounds sterling. They come with a sturdy lock, double glazing, heating, electrical sockets and proper flooring. Of course, in Bermuda's summer heat, cooling alternatives will be key but, again, the intrepid importer will resolve such issues.

image: tetra shedLess traditional design alternatives (that are unlikely to receive planning permission in Bermuda!) include the Tetra shed (yes, the resemblance to Darth Vader has been noted already). 

And, if you feel lonely in your new home office, follow the shedworking blog of Alex Johnson. There is more to this lifestyle than you might think. image: tetra shed

too ugly to survive?

I read about this building, the Orange County government building in Goshen, NY, a short while ago and tagged it as one to mention in a post. Since then, The New York Times has gathered a passel of design writers, preservationists and an urban analyst to debate the question of whether some buildings, such as the one shown below, are just too ugly to keep.

image: fred r. caplan, the new york times

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Brutalism as an architectural style, of which this is an example, but I can see the value of retaining representations of the numerous architectural styles that have evolved over time. Living in a country where the Bermuda Image tends to pre-determine external appearance, I envy those who can point to true variety and design innovation.

I vote for keeping this pretty ugly building and spending the money to renovate it. What do you think?