(ir)relevant?

The average person has zero architectural background, let alone knowledge of architectural theory.  When my mother first saw my undergrad architectural school she hated it.  She said one addition in particular felt cold and uncomfortable.  After a tour that explained how the space worked, the logic of the operations and the educational value of that addition, she was able to appreciate it and sing its praises.  This little story is great, but most users of public buildings will never get a specialized tour explaining the ideas behind the work.  So how do we make it relevant?

While Jeremy Till’s sassy response was entertaining and had a lot of truth to it, his observations are on a different scope than Frampton.  An architect employing Frampton’s Critical Regionalism in attention to the tactile and tectonic would hopefully assume that the social and political connotations are also of great importance at a larger scale in the project.  Frampton’s focus lies in making architecture relevant to its context and relevant to people, rather than relying on an esoteric critical base or post-modern aesthetic tactics.  

“Sometimes we ask of the architectural profession demands which the profession by itself cannot meet. So I think that to distinguish between architecture and building, and I suppose finally ‘what is architecture?’ I think architecture guarantees the public realm that kind of political and cultural importance. There's a philosopher, Hannah Arendt, who coined the term ‘the space of public appearance.’ I think architecture is ultimately about the space of public appearance’ like this space for example, and this building.” Kenneth Frampton in 2014 Interview

Jeremy Till's 9 Stock Orchard Street (a demonstrative & experimental house)

Jeremy Till's 9 Stock Orchard Street

Student model of Jorn Utzon's Bagsvaerd Church made for Kenneth Frampton taught course