Beautiful! Really enjoyed the article and the examples. Only thing I didn't understand is HOW you concluded that "neither Mollison nor Holmgren put that much emphasis on" these two principles. Wouldn't some of the 12 Principles from Holmgren ie Design From Patterns to Details – AND
Integrate Rather Than Segregate – “Many hands make light work”
By putting the right things in the right place, relationships develop between those things and they work together to support each other. Plus Bill's Designer Manual is FILLED with dozens of examples emphasizing the importance of stacking functions.... Don't get me wrong, I loved the article, I just couldn't find any truth to that claim in my own observations or study. Maybe you could clarify.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You're right, it's my wording that's poorly chosen. It's not that they don't put emphasis on these concepts, but they both structure their set of design principles in a way that they are not treated as separate principles. Of course the same ideas can be found in principles such as work with nature not against it (elements serve functions by their nature) or everything gardens (another way of saying they serve a function), integrate rather than segregate as you pointed out, or even make the most of energy which ironically is another principle from the same set. But no, it is incorrect to imply they don't consider it important. They just never turned it into it's own principle.
So I will have to rephrase that part (while I still can edit it). I think a couple more attempts at explaining myself should let me come up with the best wording. Thank you for pointing this out, by the way.
I really appreciated you doing the same and calling me out in a previous post I had done and I just wanted to encourage you to make a fantastic post EVEN BETTER. I got your back, and that will come in the form of unreserved praise (your stuff IS great @stortebeker! )and the occasional prod or bit of constructive criticism. As a community, if we can put all our skills together, we can do all the things......and have fun improving our craft in the process. Great clarification man, thank you for the wise retort. My friend commented on a video I had posted and quite correctly pointed out how dry and difficult it was for him to watch. I was irked at first but then saw exactly what he meant and replaced the video with one more flashy, shorter and to the point. He was right. Been having a lot of awkward but ultimately worthwhile teachable moments lately so I guess it's just my mood. The editing in the first week is AWESOME, just wish I also realized the only thing you can't really edit are the title and main category you wanna post in. May the Forces of Nature be with you..... @ecoknowme :)
Done! And it sounds so much better this way. Once again, thank you for nudging me towards the right direction. And yes, once I notice something that doesn't sound quite right (or outright wrong) I'll make sure to say something.
You know, I think we are not yet used to actual dynamic writing. After centuries of one-way communication in print-media the above interaction seems still unusual. Changing a published article? Unheard of! But had we been talking, you would probably have asked to clarify this point right there and then. But given our current abilities, we still can do it. Now the text is changed, and we both feel more comfortable about pointing out things that may need a bit more work. I'd say it's a win-win.
Best. Agreegument. Ever. Total win/win and reminded me of the cultural anthropology guy who studied this phenomena and made a cool video called the 'Machine is Us/ing Us"