Lived-in Minimums
"What is common cannot be special but it can be of high quality. Famous urban environments from the past teach us it is quite possible that an entire environment is beautiful, functions well, and is well executed. That kind of quality first of all requires that those who work in the same location share values to a significant extent."
I think this excerpt from Habraken describes the culture of the working Favelas. The members of those communities acquire the skills necessary to build to a high enough standard of acceptable living because it is in all of their best interests. While each dwelling may not be special, together these spaces work as a network system that creates an extraordinary unplanned environment. They function well for the purpose in which they were created, and this is because of a network of need, and shared values of people. These spaces were completely made for the inhabitants, and not for the need of the designer. This is 'lived-in architecture' as opposed to planned architecture. What can we begin to learn from a community of non-architects working in a complete local tissue as stand in builders? This typology of useful design emerges without any one person designing it, and yet it works for the masses. These masses are building for the acceptable minimum because they are negotiating between need and value. With this thinking, every square inch becomes a needed occupiable space which in turn creates functional architecture. What can we learn from these building styles and what is the acceptable minimum in modern culture?
I think this excerpt from Habraken describes the culture of the working Favelas. The members of those communities acquire the skills necessary to build to a high enough standard of acceptable living because it is in all of their best interests. While each dwelling may not be special, together these spaces work as a network system that creates an extraordinary unplanned environment. They function well for the purpose in which they were created, and this is because of a network of need, and shared values of people. These spaces were completely made for the inhabitants, and not for the need of the designer. This is 'lived-in architecture' as opposed to planned architecture. What can we begin to learn from a community of non-architects working in a complete local tissue as stand in builders? This typology of useful design emerges without any one person designing it, and yet it works for the masses. These masses are building for the acceptable minimum because they are negotiating between need and value. With this thinking, every square inch becomes a needed occupiable space which in turn creates functional architecture. What can we learn from these building styles and what is the acceptable minimum in modern culture?
Comments
Post a Comment