the people's architect

The idea of participation in architecture raises some interesting questions about the role of the architect in the design process.  There has always been a tension between the architect’s two chief ends: to give the client the building they want and to create a successful piece of architecture.  Traditionally, this second objective is largely defined by the traits, values, and experience of the particular architect commissioned to design the project – that is, their “premise” on architecture.  

Does the utopian view of participation require the removal of that aspect of designing buildings?  Lucien Kroll’s Maison Medicale is a fascinating experiment in allowing the building’s users to in many ways replace the architect as primary designer.  It is hard to imagine that the diversity of the architecture that emerges from this process could be mimicked in any authentic way by a single architect.  But just how much of the reins did Kroll let go of?  How many decisions made by the users did his experience and expertise lead him to veto or modify?  

Picture a design process in which Ando abandons concrete, Calatrava’s curves disappear, and Gehry keeps his papers lying flat on his desktop, all to abdicate the throne of decision making to a mere building user.  Instead of these architects’ identities being stamped around the world, would a cultural and regional sensibility visually emerge?  Or would the built landscape devolve into senseless, non-homogenous mayhem?