Can someone get Grandma’s armchair out of my picture?

          Architects have this idea that architecture is removed from real life. That in some magical way it surpasses the functional and is raised up on a plinth… that the architecture is on display for people to appreciate rather than use. The real question is what is architecture and who does it serve? Is architecture purely form or is there also function? Does it serve those who designed it, or those whom commissioned it? Many architects speak of the work they do as their own... their “baby”, their very own intellectual property. There are architects such as Barozzi Veiga, an extreme example, who go so far as to make rules that users of the building must follow… no red wine and no shoes that may scuff the floor. These architects have gone so far as to impose a dress code and limit the color of foods and beverages served in an effort to keep the buildings pristine. There are examples of architects who practice Gesamtkunstwerk, designing the furniture and nailing it to the walls and floors. Again, who is this serving? The architects, the architectural community? Certainly not the user. Is it that the building is not meant to be used? Should we even allow people in the doors? They may sneeze, or worse…who knows. Better to be safe than sorry, right? Wrong. Architecture is commissioned to be used, even abused, and to stand the test of time. The client comes looking for a building for themselves, not for their designers. Architects should spend more time making their buildings user friendly than making rules on how they can and can not be inhabited. The clients wishes should be the drivers for design, not an architectural image in a designers head. Grandmas armchair should be that which makes our buildings, not what ruins them.