The 2013 Oregon Legislative Session will begin soon, and the Interior Design Collaborative – Oregon is returning with interior design legislation. The basic idea is to license commercial interior designers whose work impacts the health, safety and welfare of Oregonians in large occupant and public spaces such as hospitals, schools, senior care facilities, and assembly spaces. Having been heavily involved in the effort from 2007-2012, I had a trial-by-fire learning experience about the legislative process and the intricacies of trying to regulate a profession.

Most news has focused on the controversy of interior design legislation, or the opposition. The opposition did provide some interesting lessons for us. For example, in 2011 I completely left out an exemption on the design of single units within multifamily housing when drafting the exemption language. The opposition, rightfully, jumped on this point and IDC-Oregon changed the language for the 2012 session to include this exemption. The 2012 session brought forward commercial kitchen and lighting consultants. Having helped written the exemptions again, I felt these groups were fully covered under the exemptions; however, the complexity of language in bill writing is challenging to get correct. Another interesting experience from the last session was the out-of-state opposition that came to testify. The National Kitchen and Bath Association’s main lobbyist testified, as did a woman from the East Coast who is an anti-legislation activist. AIA’s national presence was absent, although the local chapter’s lobbyist did testify.

Despite the focus on opposition, the biggest lesson learned is that we are our own worst enemy. Apathy is not the right word, as that means people do not care. In fact, IDC-Oregon has broad support from organizations, architectural and design firms, clients, and consumer safety advocacy groups. When I speak with interior designers in the commercial sector, most support the legislation. The problem is active support. Some designers who work in large firms do not feel the immediacy in a need for legislation, because ultimately they will not be required to be licensed.  The person in charge of the project quality control, or partner, will stamp drawings.

Others do not understand the difficulty in getting any legislation passed. It takes years to build support, get the language right, and get a bill passed. Grassroots efforts in getting legislation passed requires an enormous amount of active support, including writing multiple letters, meeting with legislators, and attending bill hearings at the Capitol. Showing up is 90 percent of the effort.

Former President Alicia Snyder-Carlson says this year IDC-Oregon is looking forward to hitting the ground running at the Capitol with more educational material in February. There is still work to do in educating legislators about the work commercial interior designers do and how it affects the public. For example, Alicia notes that arguments about indoor air quality and specifying non-toxic materials are well understood in Oregon.

I urge everyone in the design and construction industry to get familiar with this legislation. IDC-Oregon is hosting another educational Town Hall meeting Thursday, Jan. 24 from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at IOS, 240 N. Broadway #100. The Capitol rally day is Feb. 22, which is the best opportunity to meet legislators and tell them why legislation is important to you. Last year’s bill hearing was a great step forward in this process. To keep moving forward, we need supporters to come out in vast numbers. Every single voice matters.

The post Launching legislation 2013: lessons from past efforts appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

I just finished my first term as a masters student in architecture at the University of Oregon. The last time I designed a building from the ground up was in 2000 during my undergraduate, so this term was a challenge for me. In my interiors practice I worked within constraints such as already built or designed core and shell spaces. Building form and elevations were not in my scope. I liken architecture to sculpture making, while interior design is carving negative space. The thought process is different. The project was to design a “Generation House,” a building with daycare and independent senior living in the Goose Hollow neighborhood.

At the beginning of the term I struggled with form making, attempting to design from the outside in. After eight iterations of garbage, I decided to give up and design how I knew best: inside out.  After all, Frank Lloyd Wright said buildings should be designed from the inside out. I employed my already honed skills in space planning to get a better idea of how much space each element of my program would need. Utilizing knowledge of human interaction in space, standard space needs, and scale, I solved the complex problem of laying out a daycare and apartment building on a site that sloped in two directions. The layout of spaces informed my building form. By breaking up the program into smaller pieces, I created a building that is a city block long, but divided into smaller scale parts in a rhythm that is more in keeping with the scale of the residential part of Goose Hollow. The inside informed the outside. Not to say that architects should not design from the outside in. In his 1991 Pritzker Prize acceptance speech Robert Venturi noted that the site context is just as important. Architects must design both from the outside in and the inside out. Some of my classmates designed from the outside in and struggled with laying out spaces within difficult geometries. I struggled with the elevation of my building, which ultimately was the weakest part of my project. A two-fold approach and perhaps a little more time would have yielded a stronger solution.

The question I am left with at the end of this term is should architects study interiors or should interior designers be involved earlier in the design process? I say both. Just as it is important for interior designers to have some basic knowledge of architecture, as required by CIDA accreditation, architects should have an understanding of interior design. Interior designers should also be involved in the early planning process. It is like utilizing a mechanical engineer early in the project to create a more efficient building.

I have designed tenant spaces in a variety of buildings in the Northwest. Some, I felt, had been designed without much knowledge of what will work on the interior. These buildings have odd bay depths where I ended up with a 7-foot hallway in the tenant space, or where a less efficient layout is required to avoid having a column in the middle of a conference room. One building, in which we were contracted for the FF&E package, had offices that were only seven feet wide. Another building had such a narrow south bay depth that the tenant spaces had to be enlarged beyond what the program required to get the required second exit. This creates a more expensive space for the tenant. Having an interior designer involved early, especially for buildings that will have tenant spaces, can help create better rentable space. Architects and interior designers, while having knowledge overlap, do think differently. We can inform one another to create a stronger, more successful project.

The post Design from the inside out, or the outside in? appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The role of interior designers is rapidly changing. The profession itself is beyond the simple confusion of interior design with decoration, although the perception of the industry may not be yet. During the seven years I practiced, before going back to school, I got a glimpse of the quickly evolving body of knowledge. I saw the introduction of specializations within the LEED accreditation system and the growing field of research in evidence based design for healthcare.  Advancements in chemical manufacturing continue to spur innovation in integrated and topical treatments for building materials from stain resistance to antimicrobial properties. The sheer magnitude of information we are expected to master makes me wonder why the industry is still fighting to be recognized for its unique skill sets.

Andrea Bainbridge founded her firm, Bainbridge, in 1983. In a way, not much has changed since then. Her firm still works with corporate and public agencies to create spaces that will foster teamwork, collaboration and productivity. In the 1980s this translated to private offices on the perimeter and full height workstations on the interior of spaces.  Today, fueled by research in sustainable design and workplace health and welfare, this translates to ample day lighting for everyone and lower height workstations. The goals are the same, but the solutions are different. The interior designer reflects this awareness of complex problem solving, however, industry perception is trapped in a dated model. Andrea feels that there is much more awareness of the interior design industry, but interior designers still struggle to be taken seriously.

What has changed is technology. From the introduction of computer-aided drafting to the adoption of building information modeling software, the way interior designers are able to quickly view spaces in 3D and coordinate with other consultants is revolutionizing the industry.  Building codes have become more complicated, as have standards not yet adopted by codes. “There is an enormous amount of information we are expected to know,” Andrea says, citing lighting technology, sustainability, and building material technology. A designer used to judge a material based on performance properties and aesthetics. Now, we also research the chemical make up of materials, the sourcing and production process, maintenance, and end of life disposal options. Andrea acknowledges that larger architectural firms understand that this is a different skill set, “They value the expertise and hire us as consultants.”

As to the future of interior design, there is much fodder for focused blogs: globalization, diversity, beyond LEED and the Living Building Challenge, research, and much more. However, I believe the immediate challenge facing the profession is the issue of credibility and licensing. Andrea adds, “[Interior Design] needs to be its own profession separate from architecture. Architects are finally understanding that.”  In an essay in the publication The State of the Interior Design Profession, Interiors and Sources editor Robert Nieminen, concludes that the long-term challenge facing the profession is this identity crisis. He states, “No single issue facing the profession of interior design is more polarizing than that of regulating the practice of interior design.”

While this continues to be debated in the industry and legislature, interior designers should continue promoting our unique knowledge set, pushing to be included early on in projects as part of an integrated design process, and contributing to the body of research. We bring a vital value to the design process that results in healthy, safe, sustainable, humanistic and beautiful built spaces. And of course, happy clients.

The post The Interior Design Profession: Where it’s been, where it’s going appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.