Allowing Participation at a Fundamental Level
I don't think that the general public's influence in the architectural process is beneficial to anyone involved. There may be cases that prove me wrong, but the majority of my experience so far has been a few vocal members of the community voicing their strong opinions, while everyone else goes about their daily lives, unconcerned with the outcome either way. When public meetings are held about the creation of a new building or the tearing down of a historic structure, only those intimately involved with the site of question attend or express any sort of opinion.
So my proposal is to let non-architects be involved in the architecture, just not in the process. After all, we are trained to design. I understand that it is beneficial to hear the opinions of the public. However, a few public outliers opinions about what is good and bad design should not affect our own process. So I say we create architecture that allows the users to engage, to find something to connect with. Because really, it's all about people wanting to create a home of sorts, to make the space their own in some unique way. This can be done in ways such as the Elemental Project in Chile, like Michelle mentioned. But at an even more basic level, the follies implemented by Tschumi in Parc de la Villette allow people to inhabit the architecture and create a space for their own, even if it's just for the 20 minutes they spend occupying the site. I propose to letting people have intimate participation with architecture over getting them involved in the large-scale conceptual ideas.
While I agree with you that non-architects should be engaged with their architecture, I think non-architects should also be involved in the conceptual process. It's up to the architect to convince them why their idea might not work or what the consequences of their idea is. I don't think architects alone have all the answers to every design dilemma. I'd say the more backgrounds and opinions there are, the more likely a better solution will be discovered, or at least one that wasn't even remotely considered at the start.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both your stance Jess and what Mike is saying, but I think it points to a bigger problem. I think if we could get more people involved and caring about the outcome of projects perhaps the voices that are there would be more than just the outliers. Is this actually something that can be achieved realistically? I'm not so sure...
ReplyDelete"So my proposal is to let non-architects be involved in the architecture, just not in the process." What does this mean? The "process" meaning the design process as a whole? Or the conceptual process? I agree with Mike the non-architects should be involved the nascent stage of the project, especially community-based projects. That is where their input can be most valuable - before the engineers get their hands on it.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, your point about vocal community members is true - the annoying NIMBY people often times contribute little to nothing to the process. I guess it is our job to sort through the feedback.
Although I agree with you about the fact that non- architects should be involved in projects and I also believe that sometimes their opinions gives totally a different perspective on way we think about the projects. However i dont feel it is practical for every scale and type of project to support general public participation at the built level.
ReplyDelete