Architecture of the public: beyond the dreams..

In the social and political context of Giancarlo de Carlo’s article, participatory architecture was taking its first steps and hence it seems to come across as THE solution to all the problems (authoritative, exclusive, non-participative design) that had lay-people protesting on the streets. It was to embody a democratic, inclusive, participative design ideology that defied the elitist nature of architecture and urban planning active at the moment.

An initial view of participation based architecture might surely create a very optimistic view in our minds. The first level of obstacles in the actual act of execution of a participant based architecture might be the actual inclusion of the user themselves, since there are many more agencies at work in the architectural setting, agencies with influences beyond those of the architect (client, economy, etc.) and hence the presence or attempt at inclusion of people in the process comes across as an achievement of great measures.

But, once we look past the initial stage, there are many more nuances to this “architecture for the public”, which make it difficult to interweave into architectural practice. Having had small experiences in public interaction based architecture, I think Jeremy Till’s ‘Negotiation of hope’ helps to formalize and evaluate some of my observations from the time.

PARTICIPATION AND MANIPULATION

The degrees of participation and engagement on behalf of the people and the curbing of manipulative tendencies of us as architects (the “expert”, knowledge-holder in this case) plays an important role in an architecture demanding people’s participation. The presence of expert-layperson tensions immediately tips the scales towards the expert and I think we as architects tend to devalue the importance of the knowledge base the user has (since it comes from their observations in everyday life). This feeling of inadequacy on the part of the users may lead to a more disconnected interest in the process.

An attempt to reduce the expert-layperson component might have architects trying to communicate more transparently but have themselves come away looking as inadequate or “normal” human beings. (The notion of “what can an architect do that I can’t… I can obviously design my own house!”) The architect thus faces the fear of being devalued in the eyes of the public.

The tendency to reduce architecture to a series of problems to be solved leads to constraints in this process. Trying to understand the situation of the user in its existential and social context moves towards a more wholesome understanding of the user’s nature, thus giving architects a better understanding of the eventual situation the architecture will become a part of.

SUSPENDED STATE OF REALITY

When faced with a project, we might tend to identify a series of problems that may not be all-encompassing: program, spaces, materials, etc; and may not include other social or political aspects in the frame of reference. Thus, the architect may tend to enter the conversation with his/her own set of pre-determined goals and ideas and end up trying to manipulate the user into accepting their solution by presenting it as the best solution. The suspended state of reality (fantasy) that existed in the architect’s mind might not match up to the existing reality and it finally implodes upon actual occupation of the space.

The other end of this spectrum would be the architect letting the user take control completely without adequate value of his knowledge base, leading to a situation where knowledge of the architect is un-utilized.

Thus, the need to improve the way we communicate with each other! The communication of ideas and spaces the architect and user envision, needs to be more transparent leading to a better understanding of the actualities of what is being discussed and proposed by each party.

In one of many conversation with my senior in architectural practice, I remember him saying, “I want to design a home for this family, not a building… and for that I need to understand how they live, how they function, what makes them who they are… only then can I add value to their home and the spaces they live in, through my design in a wholesome manner.”

Understanding the story behind each person’s life and lifestyle lends a better understanding of the way we can design for them. It demands that the architect inhabit and understand the life of the person he is designing for.

In conclusion, I think that although difficult, this sense of architecture involving the public brings to the fore new aspects which can influence architectural design and sensibilities. I think it provides a new set of challenges through which we can hope to practice a more meaningful style of architecture.