CSI’s project delivery and CDT materials describe design as having a dual nature:
An aesthetic (or qualitative/artistic) side – concerned with form, appearance, spatial experience, and how the built environment is perceived and used.
A technical side – concerned with structural integrity, building systems, code compliance, constructability, performance, and cost.
In the broader project-management literature you’ve uploaded, the design and construction process is described as blending technical requirements with broader qualitative and organizational goals. For example, the project life cycle discussion notes that each stage involves both technical and managerial activities, reflecting the need to satisfy functional, performance, and experiential objectives simultaneously.
CSI’s CDT framework builds on this by emphasizing that:
The architect/engineer must respond to owner values (aesthetics, image, function) and
Technical constraints and criteria (codes, standards, performance, budget, schedule).
This is what is commonly summarized in CDT study materials as the “dual nature of design” – aesthetic and technical.
Why the other options do not match CSI’s phrasing:
A. Site and building – Both are important aspects of design, but CSI’s dual-nature concept is not expressed as site vs. building.
C. Programming and planning – These are phases or processes that precede or support design, not the two “natures” of design itself.
D. Innovation and authenticity – Desirable qualities, but not the canonical CSI pair.
Thus, the correct pair that matches CSI’s description of the dual nature of design is Option B – Aesthetic and technical.
CSI-aligned references (no URLs):
CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide – “The Design Stage” (discussion of design as both artistic/aesthetic and technical/problem-solving).
CSI CDT body of knowledge – conceptual overview of the designer’s responsibilities and
