Sounds about right…UX is a good analogy but it’s fairly new in the grand scheme of things. Historically, the user experience portion of design was covered by graphic and/or product designers. I’ve heard of behavioral designers and urban planners being brought on by architectural firms so maybe “resident experience design” is something we’ll see soon as a branch from architect?
I think it could be, but one problem is that there are some dimensions of a good Resident Experience that fall well outside the scope of the architect - like affordability. For that reason I think it's most practical that this is either a role the developer consciously takes on or is a hired professional role. The problem with the developer doing it his or herself is that the incentives for the developer in nearly every project discourage this
I'm smelling what you're stepping in here, but doesn't the architect (the designer of human spaces) fill this role? In theory, at least. I don't know if it's entirely fair to say "absolutely no thought is put into how its design affects the people who live in it".
I agree that the systems-level connections (your transit example) and the financial aspects of Resident Experience Design may not be _explicitly_ included in the job requirements of an architect, and I understand the logic of the subsequent syllogisms in this article... so my (uneducated & unexperienced) suggestion/idea would be to roll Resident Experience Design into what architecture currently encompasses. Because that's where the pencil starts hitting the paper in terms of what gets built, right?
The architect certainly plays a role in the Resident Experience, and the quality of the architect makes a difference. But usually what the architect designs is mainly driven by the developer's financial model. So it doesn't reason from the Resident first. If anything it's trying to salvage Resident Experience in the face of budget constraints. And even then it doesn't make any consideration for overall affordability, etc.
Another problem are the incentives both for the architect and developer. Neither has any reason to actually think about the long term Resident Experience, and the developer may actually have a large disincentive to do so. Investing in the Resident Experience in the long term may very well lower the developer's profit from the project (even if those investments might maximize the value of the project over the long term)
Spot on. I've spent the past 5 years working on Resident Experience platforms for multifamily communities and this was very evident. For one beyond guaranteeing collections, the Resident experience is typically an afterthought.
Even when developers seemed like they were trying - they mostly just focused on providing amenities and not thinking through how residents would interact with those amenities or with the surrounding community.
This is more evident in developing nations where there are typically smaller budgets and more surrounding community headwinds to deal with.
As someone who has worked with urban planners, urban designers, architects, landscape architects etc in a North American context I can safely tell you that nobody is filling these shoes that Joel is writing about. The closest I’ve seen of this being spoken about was through my urban design training in the Netherlands which I loved and wanted to share, but trust me, nobody was interested in what I had to say on UX design of our urban space in the North American context. It’s just completely ignored, like the culture itself has no conceptual framework to attach it to so it’s like shouting into a void. Sadly, this leads to the uncoordinated soup that is our built environments. Kudos to Joel for bringing this up, I’ve long given up the fight for this but will absolutely cheer him in as he enters the arena 👏👏👏
One more thought: Developers can only affect the aspect of resident experience within the development itself. In most cases you are talking about a single building, or a single city block in which you can design in a way to maximize resident experience.
There is not a whole lot that a developer can do about the parts of resident experience that come from the development's location within a city. As an absurd example: My experience of a 60-unit beautiful mixed use apartment building will be much worse if it is located in the middle of a farm instead of a city with good transit options and parks nearby. Resident experience is also the job of the city and community in which the development resides.
Yes, the coordination problems with the rest of the city/neighborhood are a great point. It becomes a lot more relevant if the developer is building a very large scale residential project vs. a more constrained infill project in an existing area
In theory, resident experience is the role of the urban designer. At worst, the urban designer, if listened to, will create spaces that feel great to be in (think of proper street widths and building heights that feel like an urban room, street furniture like trees and seating that are appealing to the eye). At best, the urban designer will do all those things, AND have those be based in economic reality. You can have a grand vision for a main street that is active with lots of restaurants and stores, but if no businesses ever take up those store fronts than your are just left with a pretty street and no people.
I take your point, however, and agree with you - that prioritization of urban design / resident experience is lacking. It is often one of the first things that is "value - engineered" out of a design. Developers are more likely to try to save money and just maximize square footage. I agree that with more choice now, developers will hopefully listen more to the urban designers, even if it costs more up front, as they start to see that more folks will want to live in great spaces.
This is my hope too! And I do think this trend of remote work is a big shift whose impacts won't be fully realized for years or decades. High-rise office vacancies are the first order effect but things like I'm describing in this article are more the second and third order effects.
Sounds about right…UX is a good analogy but it’s fairly new in the grand scheme of things. Historically, the user experience portion of design was covered by graphic and/or product designers. I’ve heard of behavioral designers and urban planners being brought on by architectural firms so maybe “resident experience design” is something we’ll see soon as a branch from architect?
I think it could be, but one problem is that there are some dimensions of a good Resident Experience that fall well outside the scope of the architect - like affordability. For that reason I think it's most practical that this is either a role the developer consciously takes on or is a hired professional role. The problem with the developer doing it his or herself is that the incentives for the developer in nearly every project discourage this
I'm smelling what you're stepping in here, but doesn't the architect (the designer of human spaces) fill this role? In theory, at least. I don't know if it's entirely fair to say "absolutely no thought is put into how its design affects the people who live in it".
I agree that the systems-level connections (your transit example) and the financial aspects of Resident Experience Design may not be _explicitly_ included in the job requirements of an architect, and I understand the logic of the subsequent syllogisms in this article... so my (uneducated & unexperienced) suggestion/idea would be to roll Resident Experience Design into what architecture currently encompasses. Because that's where the pencil starts hitting the paper in terms of what gets built, right?
The architect certainly plays a role in the Resident Experience, and the quality of the architect makes a difference. But usually what the architect designs is mainly driven by the developer's financial model. So it doesn't reason from the Resident first. If anything it's trying to salvage Resident Experience in the face of budget constraints. And even then it doesn't make any consideration for overall affordability, etc.
Another problem are the incentives both for the architect and developer. Neither has any reason to actually think about the long term Resident Experience, and the developer may actually have a large disincentive to do so. Investing in the Resident Experience in the long term may very well lower the developer's profit from the project (even if those investments might maximize the value of the project over the long term)
Spot on. I've spent the past 5 years working on Resident Experience platforms for multifamily communities and this was very evident. For one beyond guaranteeing collections, the Resident experience is typically an afterthought.
Even when developers seemed like they were trying - they mostly just focused on providing amenities and not thinking through how residents would interact with those amenities or with the surrounding community.
This is more evident in developing nations where there are typically smaller budgets and more surrounding community headwinds to deal with.
As someone who has worked with urban planners, urban designers, architects, landscape architects etc in a North American context I can safely tell you that nobody is filling these shoes that Joel is writing about. The closest I’ve seen of this being spoken about was through my urban design training in the Netherlands which I loved and wanted to share, but trust me, nobody was interested in what I had to say on UX design of our urban space in the North American context. It’s just completely ignored, like the culture itself has no conceptual framework to attach it to so it’s like shouting into a void. Sadly, this leads to the uncoordinated soup that is our built environments. Kudos to Joel for bringing this up, I’ve long given up the fight for this but will absolutely cheer him in as he enters the arena 👏👏👏
Thank you so much Fei!!! Many of these ideas do seem more prevalent in the Netherlands than nearly anywhere else
One more thought: Developers can only affect the aspect of resident experience within the development itself. In most cases you are talking about a single building, or a single city block in which you can design in a way to maximize resident experience.
There is not a whole lot that a developer can do about the parts of resident experience that come from the development's location within a city. As an absurd example: My experience of a 60-unit beautiful mixed use apartment building will be much worse if it is located in the middle of a farm instead of a city with good transit options and parks nearby. Resident experience is also the job of the city and community in which the development resides.
Yes, the coordination problems with the rest of the city/neighborhood are a great point. It becomes a lot more relevant if the developer is building a very large scale residential project vs. a more constrained infill project in an existing area
In theory, resident experience is the role of the urban designer. At worst, the urban designer, if listened to, will create spaces that feel great to be in (think of proper street widths and building heights that feel like an urban room, street furniture like trees and seating that are appealing to the eye). At best, the urban designer will do all those things, AND have those be based in economic reality. You can have a grand vision for a main street that is active with lots of restaurants and stores, but if no businesses ever take up those store fronts than your are just left with a pretty street and no people.
I take your point, however, and agree with you - that prioritization of urban design / resident experience is lacking. It is often one of the first things that is "value - engineered" out of a design. Developers are more likely to try to save money and just maximize square footage. I agree that with more choice now, developers will hopefully listen more to the urban designers, even if it costs more up front, as they start to see that more folks will want to live in great spaces.
This is my hope too! And I do think this trend of remote work is a big shift whose impacts won't be fully realized for years or decades. High-rise office vacancies are the first order effect but things like I'm describing in this article are more the second and third order effects.