Gentrification & the Two-Headed Monster That is User Participation

In truth, this should be two separate blog posts, but in the spirit of efficiency I decided it would be best to combine them.

Gentrification for the Wrong Reasons

Throughout "Architecture's Public," De Carlo writes about the distinct difference between designing for the rich and designing for the poor, and the absolute disgrace that it represents. Towards the end, you can sense his criticism when he states that "[designing for rich calls for high standards while designing for poor calls for low standards] - as if the human needs of the two groups are were not absolutely identical." This statement brought me back to the idea of gentrification and the controversy that surrounds it. In many ways gentrification can be a good thing, but I think today there is such a negative connotation for some because it is for the wrong reasons, and targeting the wrong user. Why is it that the development of the poorer, more dilapidated parts of town come at the expense of those who currently reside there and benefit those who do not? As architects, we are servants of the people - not just the rich. There are many examples where gentrification of a poorer area benefited not only those of wealth but more importantly the people that it should have in the first place - those who already live there and have grown their community.

(See: Sam Mockbee and Rural Studio) The goal of gentrification should not be to "remove the unwanted in order to attract more people" but instead just improve what is around us for the sake of improvement because at the end of the day we are all just people who share the same basic needs no matter the depth of our pockets - and that Starbucks coffee is still going to taste burnt no matter who lives in the neighborhood next to it.

The Two-Headed Monster That is User Participation

Architecture needs to get away from this egotistical idea that the architect is the sole proprietor of his/her design and knows best for the community because "he/she is taught in the ways of design." Absolute BS. The architect is only one person, the community could be thousands, and in some cases millions. The idea of including the user will enhance the design because they are now involved in something that will impact them, so they have the most to gain or lose. Those who ignore the wants and needs of the user are destined to fail, as De Carlo said the user will have less reason to buy in and support the building. 

User participation can also be a bit frustrating at times, so the architect needs to learn to prioritize and filter. It is impossible to please everyone, there will always be someone who criticize the building, but listening to those who will actually use the building will pay off in the long run. The user who feels invested in a building will do just that: use it.