Relevance of Architects
"It is as if architecture were merely a potential space and not an actual place, concrete, made of real materials, and inhabited by people in a permanent and continually changing relationship. So why should architecture be credible today?"
In Architecture's Public, author Giancarlo De Carlo raises the question of how architecture can remain relevant when such a distinct gap has developed between the client and the user. Over time architects have aligned themselves with the elite, the client, because that is the source of their income. While many built projects may be driven by financial incentives, at the core its purpose is the user - so how can we ignore them? Is it because fast-tracked project schedules leave no time for user participation? Is it because we've built a certain project type before so we assume this one will be the same? Is it because the client is not willing to pay for it? Is it because fresh out of architecture school this concept of user participation is still blurry? Or have we, as a profession, just become complacent?
In Architecture's Public, author Giancarlo De Carlo raises the question of how architecture can remain relevant when such a distinct gap has developed between the client and the user. Over time architects have aligned themselves with the elite, the client, because that is the source of their income. While many built projects may be driven by financial incentives, at the core its purpose is the user - so how can we ignore them? Is it because fast-tracked project schedules leave no time for user participation? Is it because we've built a certain project type before so we assume this one will be the same? Is it because the client is not willing to pay for it? Is it because fresh out of architecture school this concept of user participation is still blurry? Or have we, as a profession, just become complacent?
Underground city near Tungkwan, China
https://lamachineahabiter.wordpress.com/tag/vernacular/
Hyderabad, Pakistan
https://lamachineahabiter.wordpress.com/tag/vernacular/
There are many examples of architecture without architects that show us that the user is capable of developing sophisticated building systems that specifically meet their needs...so what value can we add as architects?
I think that user participation is a hard concept to grasp in school because we so rarely get the opportunity to have an actual user. Even in situations where we survey or speak to community members, I think it is easy to ignore the "user" when it isn't a real project that will actually be built. I think in the profession it is easier to use what already works than to critically examine what works to see if it can work better. I found as an intern being constantly told to pull full room layouts from previous projects and drop them into new projects as a way to save time. What can we do as new professionals entering the work force to influence these ways of thinking in order to put the focus back onto each individual user vs. a user category?
ReplyDeleteDepending on the nature of the work, there is only a loosely defined user throughout the project. A commercial building can be catered towards certain types of users, but unless specifically designed for a singular client there is no way of getting to know the end user. The same happens in apartments, which is why so many are so similar. These designs are based on perceived needs which are established by the developer and architect, while the future tenant remains anonymous. I would like to think that we could propose an type of unfinished design for these applications and allow opportunities for the eventual users to manipulate their home/ business as they desire.
ReplyDeleteSo would you argue that the only form of architecture that has a true defined user would be a high end residential project where there is a specific client that is the user and client? But the community is also a user, which can be contacted and utilized.
ReplyDelete