It’s a brisk 16 degrees outside, but I have just taken a moment to sit down at a bar and jot down some thoughts after coming out of a one-and-a-half-hour meeting with a couple of brilliant acousticians. I gave them my take on the problem – a problem that they were all too familiar with. I suggested that I wanted to develop new design methods based on listening or re-examining the parallels between acoustic testing and architectural design methods, for example, through model making or visualisation techniques. I pitched them the idea of constructing a 1:1 scale prototype via qualitative methods so that I could measure and test the outcomes (see: a future blog post that I have yet to pen). But they weren’t interested – not in the prototyping at least. They’ve seen hundreds of concert halls and probably gone through thousands more simulations and design iterations. They’ve spent their careers making suggestions to architects about improvements, often receiving non-sensical architectural modifications or suggestions as replies. The idea of taking something from conception to reality is something they see constantly through advising on projects. The design consultations with acousticians involve a week or two of designing and iteration, not the multi-year scale architects go through.

Instead, it was the design methods they homed in on, and the potential of educating future architects. They happily suggested ways that students and practitioners might better engage with acoustic information – perhaps a ‘material palette’ of sound or designing new interactive tools. They immediately latched onto the idea that applicability might be not only for concert halls and performance venues but offices and classrooms too. In reflection, their reactions should have been anticipated, but it seems like this might be a real problem after all.