That background building life...

“There is the simple fact that one cannot claim at the same time that the entire built environment is to be architecture and that architecture is special and different. How can everything be special? …. What are we actually doing?..... ’too bad nobody wants to do a background building”

This is a question I ponder a fair amount. I have never been one for the crazy far out ideas but more of a person with an idea of continual improvement. Small changes and tweaks can make a world of difference in the users' experience. Not to say I don’t appreciate and like the overly ambitious buildings but I think there is a hidden value in the everyday architect, the ones building where you work, eat, grocery shop, and play. These architects have more of an effect on the everyday life than the latter. 

At times in school it seems like this notion of an “everyday architect” is not worthy of being discussed, they only want the far out "pie in the sky" designs and pushing the envelope in many ways. Why can’t we be creating innovative practical designers that take on the problems of common life? This leads to another point made in the article “What is common cannot be special, but it can be of high quality”.  Just because something is common does not mean it can’t be of high quality or ambition, I strive to make great places for the everyday contact. Is it bad that I want to design those “background buildings” they are special in their own way of a powerful repeated impact on the user over time, not just one powerful smack and then it is done as it is possible with building of more magnitude.