Grassroots Representation for the Just City
"At the level of the neighborhood, there is the greatest opportunity for democracy but the least amount of power; as we scale up the amount of decision-making, power increases, but the potential of people to affect outcomes diminishes."
-Susan Fainstein, Planning and the Just City
The notion that planning does not apply to architects is ludicrous. The idea that a building is a stand-alone piece without an effect on its context is an archaic concept that should have died with Modernism. Yet this backwards momentum has arisen out of the irresponsible splendor of architecture during the past few decades, driving the profession to go "back to its roots" and bury itself with purely physical concerns such as tectonics, geometry, and proportion. Those concerns are safely insulated from the complex social, cultural, and geo-political issues we face today, and they are reflective of our "culture of heightened risk aversion," as Jeremy Till noted.
The profession needs to step outside of its comfort zone and start making real change. The majority of financially successful firms today are cumbersome, reluctant to change, and not doing enough to push the envelope beyond the envelope of their building. Our world is fast-paced, complex, and constantly adapting to change, and our architecture firms need to follow suit. We could learn a lot from the start-up business model, which places value on good ideas, adaptability, and resourcefulness, rather than simply feeding the machine.
By taking on responsibility on the front-end of the construction process with truly meaningful design, there is an opportunity to affect local change, empower communities, and use resources responsibly. I'm reminded of the Integrated Project Delivery graph below when thinking about the process of design and the process of change. Susan Fainstein was aware of the misuse of power when concentrated at the top end of the spectrum, and architects need to work more towards representing those at the neighborhood level and affecting quick, effective change for the majority.
-Susan Fainstein, Planning and the Just City
The notion that planning does not apply to architects is ludicrous. The idea that a building is a stand-alone piece without an effect on its context is an archaic concept that should have died with Modernism. Yet this backwards momentum has arisen out of the irresponsible splendor of architecture during the past few decades, driving the profession to go "back to its roots" and bury itself with purely physical concerns such as tectonics, geometry, and proportion. Those concerns are safely insulated from the complex social, cultural, and geo-political issues we face today, and they are reflective of our "culture of heightened risk aversion," as Jeremy Till noted.
The profession needs to step outside of its comfort zone and start making real change. The majority of financially successful firms today are cumbersome, reluctant to change, and not doing enough to push the envelope beyond the envelope of their building. Our world is fast-paced, complex, and constantly adapting to change, and our architecture firms need to follow suit. We could learn a lot from the start-up business model, which places value on good ideas, adaptability, and resourcefulness, rather than simply feeding the machine.
By taking on responsibility on the front-end of the construction process with truly meaningful design, there is an opportunity to affect local change, empower communities, and use resources responsibly. I'm reminded of the Integrated Project Delivery graph below when thinking about the process of design and the process of change. Susan Fainstein was aware of the misuse of power when concentrated at the top end of the spectrum, and architects need to work more towards representing those at the neighborhood level and affecting quick, effective change for the majority.
Comments
Post a Comment