"How?" + "Why?" = ???

In Architecture’s Public, De Carlo tends to speak about “the user” as if it’s a static aspect of architecture which is habitually ignored or misunderstood throughout analysis, planning, and post-occupancy evaluations. But the reality of the user is just as ambiguous as his definition of architecture as a mystic field which can’t seem to reconcile art and technology. Just as scale and project types vary extensively, the role of the user varies from homeowner, to daily worker, to visitor, to passerby on the street.

De Carlo’s ideas about ongoing user participation in design ignore the fact that a majority of architecture has to reach hundreds of people simultaneously. At a large scale, to fully understand the needs of any group will require nonexistent time and energy and will lead to compromise at best. Of course, this isn’t an excuse to disregard the user.

Instead, it is a reason to possibly broaden the scope with which the user is defined and design primarily for human characteristics in a very general "public." Thoughtful consideration of elements which are crucial to inherent biological, psychological and sociological human needs would be much more impactful than more specific user involvement which may reflect inconsistent, uninformed, or transient desires.

As is the case with most architectural topics, an element of balance is necessary. We all think somewhere between what’s ideal and what’s practical, and as non-specialists, we have the freedom to fall at various points on that spectrum. De Carlo presents a lot of ideas which articulate “why” architecture must be revolutionized, but he does very little to explain “how” that could ever realistically be attained. Without a representation of both parts, his argument is no more credible than the architecture he critiques.