Science of Place

I found the last part of Habraken's text very interesting. He describes how unlike many other professions, architecture doesn't have as big of a scientific body of research. Typically we don't associate the practice or architecture with research and a scientific approach but I think this is a results of the profession's attachment to its classical roots which we have heard about in previous readings. I think there are bigger firms where this type of research is being done but I think it needs to be done at a greater level of the professions so that this body of knowledge becomes a modus operandi for every architect.

 I think the bigger problem so far is that we haven't found a way of convincing our clients and the public  that there's an economic advantage of having this knowledge or type of work within the design of buildings. This is probably a symptom of the greater problem of people having no idea what we actually do as architects. There has to be a more public understanding of an architect not as the figure who designs pretty objects but as the expert of the science of place. The profession has to reach a point where we will be consulted or hired to predict how people will behave in a place over time, not just how to design a space. We need to be able to predict for a city government, through research, if the design of a public plaza will encourage public discourse and movement or not. We need to know and predict whether a low income family will be able to feel responsibility and ownership over provided public housing. I think we lost a lot of public trust last century as a profession when the egos and ideas of a few architects turned out  to be economic and social blemishes within our cities.