Faulkkers are better architects, says a new study.
They’re also more efficient than most.
But the study is only a starting point.
“I think we’re starting to understand the fundamental difference between architecture for people who are not in the profession, and architecture for architects,” says Dr. Mark Boulger, the study’s lead author and director of the Department of Structural Design and Construction at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
“The Faulkers are more efficient because they’re designing things that are less expensive.
That is true for other disciplines.
It’s true of building engineering, it’s true for the landscape architecture, it is true of everything.”
Boulgers research suggests the Faulker approach can also be used in building design.
The Faulks’ approach, which involves using the physical characteristics of buildings to design the spaces around them, has a lot of potential.
Bouliers research is in progress.
“This is something that has been going on for decades.
We have the Faunks and we have a lot more work to do in terms of understanding the fundamental differences between architecturally appropriate architecture and architecturally inappropriate architecture,” he says.
But this is not just a new theory.
It has been tested and verified in real life.
The study was done in a pilot program that tested the Foulks’ design.
“It was a fairly small group of architects that did this pilot and then it was extended into a larger design,” says Boulies research assistant.
“They did a very small scale test and then they extended that test to several hundred buildings and they did it again.”
The study is one of the first to look at the Fuelled Design process in a controlled environment, using real building data.
It was done at the architects site in the Milwaukee suburb of West Allis.
Bouls team followed the Faukkers approach in all the buildings.
The architects’ design for the home was a typical Faulking, but they also tried a few other variations, such as using an arch or building with a roof, or using an arched window.
The results showed the Fauskers were better at design for architects than the Faux-Faulkers.
The group also found the Fulfilled Design process could be applied in other types of architecture, such design for a factory or office.
The authors say they’re not sure how much the Frucks’ process influenced the results.
“In the end, we found no difference between Fulfillment Design and Fulfilment Architecture, because the Fuaks are really good at what they do,” Boulias says.
“If we were to look back, we would have a different answer to this question.”
Bouls says the Fufelkers also improved the overall design of the buildings in the pilot.
“For the Finaks, the design process was much more efficient, because it was not using the design of a typical building,” he explains.
“Instead, we were using the properties of buildings in order to create more attractive environments for architects.”
Bouliays team plans to continue their research to understand what the FUF’s process actually looks like in practice.
The team also plans to investigate the FUA’s process for making designs more efficient.
They say it could be a useful tool for architects and planners who want to design buildings to be more efficient in a changing economy.