The late fashion designer, Virgil Abloh, had a design rule for himself called the "3% approach." Above is a slide from a presentation that he gave at Harvard back in 2013 where he listed it as item 3 of his "personal design language." The idea behind this 3% rule is simple: you really only need to change something by 3% in order to create something new.
Case in point:
Given this, it should come as no surprise that Abloh had cited artist Marcel Duchamp as being a source of inspiration. (We've spoken about this before.) Duchamp is most famous for his "readymade" sculptures where he took existing objects -- like urinals -- and transformed them into art by signing them and curating them appropriately. This was obviously controversial, but it made Duchamp one of the most important artists of the 20th century.
Now, 3% seems like an oddly precise number. I don't know how, for instance, you quantify the amount of change on the above shoe. Is it surface area? In any event, that's beside the point. What's most fascinating for me about this approach is that it suggests that small changes are enough to, not just create novelty, but actually establish authorship. Meaning, the shoe on the right is no longer a Converse shoe. It is now an "OFF-WHITE" shoe. They authored it.
Like the work of Duchamp, this was and is controversial. Lots of companies have sued Off-White for trademark infringement. We know, for example, where the above black stripes came from and we know that Off-White's multi-directional arrow logo is borrowed from Glasgow Airport's logo c.1960. But that's clearly the point of readymade reworks. And it's clearly enough for people to want to pay a lot more for the shoe on the right.
Fascinating.
Do you think that this 3% approach applies (or could apply) to other things outside of fashion, like architecture and buildings? I think so.
Architect Rem Koolhaas recently unveiled a backpack that he designed for Prada’s autumn winter 2018 menswear collection.
It looks like this:
It’s more of a frontpack. Actually, maybe the right name is chestpack.
What stood out for me, though – perhaps more than its frontality – was the way that Rem Koolhaas described his reasoning behind the design.
Here is an excerpt from Dezeen:
“Today, waiting in line for a typical airport check of carry-on luggage, it is surprising to note how the shapeless container of the backpack, is inhabited by strict, orthogonal devices like the laptop, the charger, books, toilet bag, and how awkward it is to liberate these objects from their containment in the backpack,” he said.
“This project proposes a reinterpretation of the backpack, more suitable to the contemporary urban citizen,” he continued. “The frontal position gives a more intimate sense of ownership – a better control of movement, avoiding the chain of oblivious collisions that the backpack inadvertently generates.”
Leave it to an architect to talk about a backpack like the wearer is about to go to war.
P.S. I’m a fan of Koolhaas. I just found this funny.
Image: Prada
As Architect This City continues to grow in readership, I’m starting to get pitched more and more. People email me with something they want promoted and they try and convince me to write about it. Everybody is looking for distribution. I get it.
I have no qualms about people and companies reaching out. In fact, I welcome the suggestions. But the vast majority of these “pitches” don’t make it onto ATC.
When it comes to these sorts of things, I have two simple rules: (1) I have to like it myself. If I don’t think what you’re pitching is interesting or cool, I’m not going to write about it – even if you’re offering up money. (2) I need to be able to be transparent about it. More on this second point in the coming weeks.
Recently I was asked to do a post about the Fashion House Condos in Toronto’s King West neighborhood.
Here’s why I decided to do it:
I like that the existing Silverplate heritage building was preserved and integrated into the base of the condo. It’s now tenanted to The Keg, which has gone into the base of a number of new condo buildings in the city. They’re a successful chain.
Each elevator lobby within the building has a unique mural designed by a different fashion designer – most of which are Canadian. The whole Fashion House theme is meant to speak to the area’s history as Toronto’s Garment District.
Many of the residential suites have red curtains (which are white on the interior). They form a “common element” and have to stay in the condo. It gives the building a dramatic and unique feel, though it means you have to be a fan of curtains.
My good friend designed the Mexican restaurant at the base of the building (Wilbur Mexicana). His firm is called Reflect Architecture.
It’s also an example of cool startup businesses going into the base of a new development. As far as I know, Wilbur Mexicana is the group’s first venture.
There’s a rooftop pool that I’m hoping somebody will invite me to this summer.
And finally, because I think the King West neighborhood is such a great example of urban renewal.
To end off, here are some stats on the project:
Address: 560 King Street West, Toronto
Developer: Freed Developments
Architect: CORE Architects
Project Timeline: 2008-2014
Construction Costs: $60M (estimate)
Site Area: 4,887 square meters / 52,603 square feet
Gross Floor Area: 27,107 square meters / 291,777 square feet
Floors: 11 and 12 storeys
Building Heights: 33m and 39.7m
Residential Suites: 334
And here are the fashion designers responsible for each elevator lobby mural:
2nd Floor – Beckermans
3rd Floor – Dean Davidson
4th Floor – Jeremy Laing
5th Floor – Adrian Wu
6th Floor – Jenny Bird
7th Floor – Ashtiani
8th Floor – Peach Berserk
9th Floor – Smythe
10th Floor – Jay Godfrey
11th Floor – Bustle
Penthouse – Greta Constantine
What do you think of Fashion House?
Images: CORE Architects
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
