Anything But Ordinary
I have trouble with the subject of the "ordinary" and all of the questions and contradictions which come along with applying it to architecture. What distinguishes what is ordinary from what isn't? The user? The function? The architect? Why, as made apparent by every example this week, is housing the only part of our lives normal and boring enough to be graced with such a title?
Habraken describes architecture's current scenario as one in which architects are now designing what they historically did not need to, namely, housing. This type of structure was ordinary because of the intuitive nature by which it was created, lacking the technical skill necessary for more lavish buildings. Yet the new definition of ordinary, as it is described by Habraken, requires just as much finesse as that of a building with a known presence. The heavily researched behaviors and methods which are used to describe his ideal of mass housing require a great deal of planning and precision in order to correctly serve their purpose. The design of the ordinary, which must apply to and appease a diverse population of many unique users, is potentially even more difficult than designing an iconic piece of art-chitecture, which of course only serves the ego of the architect and those big ideas they're all incessantly searching for.
There is also a lot of middle ground to be covered between iconic and ordinary (whatever that is) or "foreground vs background", and all architecture does not only fall into one category or the other. A well-designed building of any kind can be special in the ways that it addresses its context, user needs, technology, or aesthetic sensibilities while still remaining a cohesive part of its surroundings. Where thoughtful architects meet unique projects and situations, the ordinary does not exist.
Habraken describes architecture's current scenario as one in which architects are now designing what they historically did not need to, namely, housing. This type of structure was ordinary because of the intuitive nature by which it was created, lacking the technical skill necessary for more lavish buildings. Yet the new definition of ordinary, as it is described by Habraken, requires just as much finesse as that of a building with a known presence. The heavily researched behaviors and methods which are used to describe his ideal of mass housing require a great deal of planning and precision in order to correctly serve their purpose. The design of the ordinary, which must apply to and appease a diverse population of many unique users, is potentially even more difficult than designing an iconic piece of art-chitecture, which of course only serves the ego of the architect and those big ideas they're all incessantly searching for.
There is also a lot of middle ground to be covered between iconic and ordinary (whatever that is) or "foreground vs background", and all architecture does not only fall into one category or the other. A well-designed building of any kind can be special in the ways that it addresses its context, user needs, technology, or aesthetic sensibilities while still remaining a cohesive part of its surroundings. Where thoughtful architects meet unique projects and situations, the ordinary does not exist.
 |
Ordinary Life
Photo by Elliot Erwitt https://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com
Comments
Post a Comment