Often I find myself in a state of sheer discombobulation, contemplating why more architects do NOT do what this firm in Seattle do, and market themselves as designers of buildings based on principles that underpin the design of the bicycle. "Bicycles embody the principles of sustainability, that buildings would do well to emulate" — I could not say it better myself.
Take my good friends Ryder sjph Architects—who I do not know from Adam—who say nothing of weight shaving by bicycle designers, when boasting how their Sydney Olympic Velodrome weighs just 40kg per square meter, a record low relative to its 100m span. Oh I would be singing that from the roof tops—assuming they could hold an extra 74kg. Likewise I would be lauding the computer modeling of that velodrome’s natural convection systems as being akin to sports scientists’ modeling of cyclists and their bikes to reduce wind drag. Sports science, I would be saying, has made my building as energy efficient as a time trialing bike.
Perhaps their lecturers’ leeriness with regards to architects’ sales spiels, has rubbed off onto the younger generation of practicing architects. Has Postmodern reticence stopped architects from going out and flogging their goods with a few cute analogies? That would be a shame.