If the Shoe Doesn’t Fit « Larson Design Group Blog

One of LDG’s more recent endeavors, the establishment of its “Brand Architecture” department, has simplified the company’s architectural design goals. Its renewed architectural ambitions now concentrate on prototypical designs while envisioning a greater national reach. As a designer for our Brand Architecture group, I am responsible for the realization of a client’s vision, one that includes the expansion of the client’s brand with respect to its standardized architectural design.

Before becoming a full-time LDG employee, I was a student in Penn State’s Architecture program, which occasionally had guest speakers participate in its annual lecture series. One guest, John Hoke, a PSU Architecture alumnus, now designs for Nike, not a company one would instantly correlate with architecture. Still, his presentation was one of the most exciting and persuasive that I remember seeing as a student. It was not only the speaker’s words of encouragement that are imprinted in my mind but a Nike recycling initiative called “Reuse-a-Shoe” that can, oddly enough, be applicable to the brand architecture objective.

Similar to shoe design, brand architecture is based on a carefully considered prototype. The prototype is mass-produced, more or less, and situated in various locations as influenced by market demands. With this scope of work, it is more common for a client to desire completely new, trademarked structures, if only to ensure the perfect fit of the structure with the brand. However, a brand does not necessarily need to build new to make its objectives clear to consumers. Aside from the obvious benefit of the sustainability factor involved with adopting “an old shoe,” there are other benefits to adaptive reuse that, ultimately, outweigh the setbacks.

An existing structure is already incorporated into the fabric of its surroundings. Retrofitting a brand into an existing structure can almost guarantee that the design will be at least appreciated by the local public. It is a site with which the resident consumer is already familiar. Of course, reclaiming an existing structure entails manipulation of the branded prototype. The economics of renovating a space to suit a brand’s needs may even be a deterrent for certain companies. Still, the marriage of the right brand with the right empty space could prove to be a winning combination. A consumer’s respect and subsequent business may make up for any additional investment associated with reuse. A brand thus achieves a greater return on investment by being sustainable and sensitive to the existing infrastructure of a site.

In the end, it may prove more fruitful for a company to utilize existing resources than to start fresh by overlooking a “worn in” space. In other words, the reality that a building – or shoe – has been “ergonomically customized” by its previous owner should not be the determining factor in the adoption of an existing structure for prototypical brand purposes. After all, where would Nike be if it had taken this stance?

As this is a topic of special personal interest, stay tuned for more thoughts on thinking brand architecture “outside of the box” to come…