Can we Adapt?

Reading about the role of an architect and how it has been oscillating in recent decades from a self-centered, isolated view to that of a negotiator/ collaborator between a wide-spread set of agencies, makes me wonder about how we are being trained to face these situations and whether we will come in contact with such situations at all in our architectural practice once we graduate. Most ‘big’ offices tend to go along the (design?) path that power and economy directs them towards (junkspace-esque) and possibly, that is the only way they (we) know to survive.*

Involving this wider range of agencies into the design development phase while taking into consideration existing urban fabric (existing physical context, social , economic and political influences and how they run everyday life, no matter how unattractive) involves investing man hours (= client’s money) which not many clients would approve. I mean we couldn’t have found the time to do that even at studio level for our current project, which might have actually been a pretty good example to experiment with this system.

Envision speaking to existing schools’ authorities and kids to understand how their schools function in a manner different and specific to Anderson, analyzing daily public activity patterns, how the street transforms with different events; studying commercial activities along main street as a basis for selecting and integrating existing or new commercial activities within our projects; looking at surrounding neighborhoods, adjacent residences, studying demographics, mapping social activities like community events, local cook outs, town meetings as a basis for understanding what a community gathering space demands in the users’ opinion and how it affects adjacent activities; analyzing how people change space just by being in that space (ice skating at Wren park?) and how we can work with the existing spontaneity of community in Anderson city.

The crux to this solution seems to be in blurring the lines dividing urban designer (top-down process), citizen (bottom-up process) and architect (a possible mediator?). Attempts to recreate the spontaneity observed in urban fabric of everyday life have previously resulted in a shadow of the vitality imagined... it seems we have a difficult time letting go of the control that is ingrained in us as architects. From what I've read, most of the previous attempts wish to create a clean slate for the new development as opposed to looking at a "plug-in" solution or creating a framework of sorts that might support the pre-existing.

But I agree with Habraken’s thoughts on the subject when I say that maybe the need to ingrain this school of thought in the architect’s education itself may be the beginning of a solution. Maybe we need to be conditioned to think like this and then possibly that nature of thinking might come easier. Once results are visible it might not seem as bad an idea to invest the requisite time and money in this kind of design process. This conclusion might seem a bit naïve, but I think that time and conviction with an openness to failure and learning might help polish this school of thought and might actually be the solution to some of the major urban and architectural issues we face in American (and otherwise) small towns today. Small moments of architecture ultimately form the bigger picture of the world we live in and since we control (to some extent) the small moments shouldn’t we try to assimilate this in some way?



*(Edit: I have read about a few firms (and NGOs) that attempt to work through a similar process and it involves government agencies or people who are aware and understand the need for such intervention. The process involves a lot of time, effort and patience and among the innumerable architectural firms we have, such firms are possibly few and far in between.)