[armagon]

I remember watching a documentary on architecture, and the speaker, who offering a different approach, said that for much of architecture, the never-look-back mantra was the unspoken rule of the day.

You'd design and build a building, and that was it. If the roof leaked (common on building-like pieces of art), you didn't want to know about it. If the interior was changed to actually work for the buildings occupants, you didn't want to know -- that'd mean that your beautiful design has been marred.

All this suggests to me that some of these designs are done without deeply considering the needs of the people affected, and realizing that those needs change, and worse, without learning from the mistakes and successes of the past.

[Note that I am not arguing about the merits of how software is, was, or should be designed.]

[PLenz]

At the beginning of my career I worked in AEC on the planning side. It was well understood that whatever the Architects had designed would be entirely redone by engineers afterwards and then by on-site engineers and then by tradespeople after that in the implementation. No one really understands what's going on in a reasonably-sized building.

[lazide]

Addressing the real needs of people is hard, and gets in the way of being famous and changing the world - a mindset I’ve seen more than a few times in designers. All of them pretty senior? So I guess it was working for them?