Who's Architecture is it Anyway?

Giancarlo De Carlo’s piece comments on the role of the user and context in reference to their inclusion in the design process. Today, this idea seems commonplace as I see it with the working world; but what about in the realm of architectural education? Sure we have our theoretical ‘client’ and for some projects a ‘budget’ but how much influence do those really have on our design. We tell our client what they need (whether they really need it or not) and essentially tell them how much they have to spend (in some cases by throwing out some arbitrary number). The theoretical client has no participation in the ultimate end result of the project. We design based on the influence of our professors and critics who have the same background knowledge as we do. In some cases, the designs are pushed astronomically over-budget due to it being a product of an architecture studio project. I think of this in relation to the “40K House” project that we did last year. In a way we had an actual client that was looking for actual designs but the nature of architecture school to design something unconventional (all they wanted was a house with a gable roof…) pushed many students’ projects way past the allowable $40,000 budget.

Are we really trying to teach students the idea of public architecture? Or are we in need of another revolt?

“Welcome to Architecture School! Where the clients are made up and the budget doesn’t matter!”