Lessons from Product Design
Ok, we can go ahead and point out the obvious- products are small with correspondingly short lifespans of a few years, while buildings are large and (typically) aim for lifespans of at least 30 years. Products are not tied to the earth like architecture, and therefore are not subjected to weather, large scale circulation patterns, or political agendas. So, experimental design automatically favors products over architecture. However, I think architects have much to learn from today's nimble product designers.
Perhaps no other industry has such an acute sense of society's desires. Every aspect of a product is designed to address, first and foremost, attracting and maintaining the satisfaction of the user. WHY WOULD YOU DESIGN A BUILDING THAT THE USER DOES NOT WANT TO USE? And yet, it happens all the time. Critical architecture, for example, seems to place a greater emphasis on what the building is trying to say than what it is doing. If I have to work there, I don't give a damn what the building is saying if I don't enjoy being in it, or if its existence is detrimental to the environment. Projective architecture, despite its flaws, at least puts priority on the function of a building.
The sensitivity with comparing architecture to product design is, of course, commodification. Architecture responds to higher social and political issues than products, and should therefore be treated with greater respect for its ramifications. I do think that certain aspects of architecture as a commodity are negative (namely, the cheapening of architecture as a disposable and therefore, minimizing its functional and material integrity), but what is so bad as making people want architecture?
Perhaps no other industry has such an acute sense of society's desires. Every aspect of a product is designed to address, first and foremost, attracting and maintaining the satisfaction of the user. WHY WOULD YOU DESIGN A BUILDING THAT THE USER DOES NOT WANT TO USE? And yet, it happens all the time. Critical architecture, for example, seems to place a greater emphasis on what the building is trying to say than what it is doing. If I have to work there, I don't give a damn what the building is saying if I don't enjoy being in it, or if its existence is detrimental to the environment. Projective architecture, despite its flaws, at least puts priority on the function of a building.
The sensitivity with comparing architecture to product design is, of course, commodification. Architecture responds to higher social and political issues than products, and should therefore be treated with greater respect for its ramifications. I do think that certain aspects of architecture as a commodity are negative (namely, the cheapening of architecture as a disposable and therefore, minimizing its functional and material integrity), but what is so bad as making people want architecture?
This is the most frustrating part about architecture. Sometimes I feel like I am screaming inside my head at hideous buildings that we continue to build because is it socially accepted. Buildings could be better aesthetically and spatially if we were willing, as a society, to challenge the status quo and build something interesting. ..something I could help but keep thinking as we toured Douthit Hills today..
ReplyDelete