Harmony

What is architecture’s public? The architects themselves? The clients who commission the buildings? The people – all the people who use architecture?

The question of who should architecture be designed for seems like an easy question for us today to answer with our education having said that it is the user whom is the most important. The argument for the user has already been made for us and it seems that it is really strong and correct. That may be true that the user is the most important to consider when designing but before that we have to consider the other two arguments. The client is important because they are the ones paying for it to be built and without them being happy then the building would never get built. They become a necessary person to please as well as one you wish to please because if you make a client happy then they can help to get you more business. The architect’s argument is a little weaker but still has some validity in that the architect has had extensive study and education of building design. Eisenman theory of pure architecture is an example of what happens when design is done for the architect. I think that design should be this balancing act between these three “public”. It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing, all three need to be addressed in the design and should be addressed with the design. Why can’t they all be important?