Public-itected or Architect-ed?

All this talk of client vs user-centric design makes me really wonder why architecture as a profession exists in the first place. The public generally knows what they want and have proven through time to be able to create their own reality and develop their own culture through building and (arguably inadvertent) design. In saying this, though, I’m assuming that architects are not part of the public – that our profession has somehow transcended the realm of humanity and has gained the knowledge of what entails a “good space.” I go back and forth on whether to leave the design to the public or not. On one hand, what’s wrong with that? Who better to know what they want? On the other, architects understand more fully the spatial, political, economic, technological, environmental, social, contextual, cultural, etc influences and implications that a building can and will have, so who better to design it?  Would the public be willing to take on this risk and role?

An aerial view of Paris showing the boulevards radiating from the Arc De Triomphe.

Public Paris vs "Architect-ed" Paris
http://www.citi.io/2015/03/27/georges-eugene-haussmann-arrondissments-boulevards/

Comments

  1. Hi Tyler,
    I also struggle with this question of how helpful or harmful architects can be. Ultimately, I do not believe the public is equipped to take on the responsibility of creating the built world. Particularly with the high-density urban situations we face, architects can maintain structural integrity, safety, and green space. Unfortunately, architects have slipped into the dangerous habit of valuing cash flow over user conditions. I think the answer lies in a balance between architectural expertise and user friendliness.

    ReplyDelete
  2. After years of the profession struggling through a recession, it is understandable that economics are one of the primary drivers of our profession. However, it's an interesting paradox that by clinging to financials to keep the profession afloat, we have actually done more harm than good to it. We have lost site of the broad range of knowledge that Tyler mentioned (spatial, political, technological, etc.) that made this profession viable and valuable. With a recovering economy do we now have more opportunities to change this?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts