Yes We Can?
Architecture and urban landscape can really shape a society, but architects could not.
Anyone who ever had Econ 101 knows the term opportunity cost: archiving goal A will be at cost of losing goal B. Architects tend to become a multi-goal profession where interests of many parties will be resolved or compromised through architectural gestures.
One of the most desiring side-role that architects that always long to take over is urban-planing. However, history told us that architects should be architects, and should not be doing job for urban planners (etc. Le Corbusier's failed urban planning concept that was turned down by most European countries but accepted by the Soviet Union) Even recently, China is banning gated high-rise communities, and encourage street front high-rise urban living conditions. The last place where Le Corbusier's urban planning thinking survived turned out to become a failed experiment, even though real urban planners pointed out its drawbacks from the beginning.
Beginning from the Renaissance, and strengthened through the Modernism period, this extreme confidence in believing that their creations can be revolutionary to society has become a common disease for architects.
On the other hand, I am not saying we should only be craftsman of spaces. Spatial justice is important, being political is important. We should embrace it. However, they could only be our profession's side-kick, and should not be this profession's ultimate goal. As a profession, we do carry social responsibilities, but it should not be the motivations or the biggest guidance for our design,
From a perspective of scale, urban planning can deal with spatial justice at city-scale level, while architecture deal with more intimate space at human-scale. Yes, we can be social responsible in our design , through a human-scale, not a city one .
Anyone who ever had Econ 101 knows the term opportunity cost: archiving goal A will be at cost of losing goal B. Architects tend to become a multi-goal profession where interests of many parties will be resolved or compromised through architectural gestures.
One of the most desiring side-role that architects that always long to take over is urban-planing. However, history told us that architects should be architects, and should not be doing job for urban planners (etc. Le Corbusier's failed urban planning concept that was turned down by most European countries but accepted by the Soviet Union) Even recently, China is banning gated high-rise communities, and encourage street front high-rise urban living conditions. The last place where Le Corbusier's urban planning thinking survived turned out to become a failed experiment, even though real urban planners pointed out its drawbacks from the beginning.
Beginning from the Renaissance, and strengthened through the Modernism period, this extreme confidence in believing that their creations can be revolutionary to society has become a common disease for architects.
On the other hand, I am not saying we should only be craftsman of spaces. Spatial justice is important, being political is important. We should embrace it. However, they could only be our profession's side-kick, and should not be this profession's ultimate goal. As a profession, we do carry social responsibilities, but it should not be the motivations or the biggest guidance for our design,
From a perspective of scale, urban planning can deal with spatial justice at city-scale level, while architecture deal with more intimate space at human-scale. Yes, we can be social responsible in our design , through a human-scale, not a city one .
Comments
Post a Comment