The Prominence of Architecture
Is architecture the backdrop of our lives or the framework that guides our actions and behaviors? Are we actually changing the lives of those who inhabit our buildings, or are we simply creating a structure for them to complete their daily tasks? As we discussed in class with the slums and social housing, a large part of the form and overall appearance of the spaces are determined by the inhabitants. The same is true of us in our homes; architects may try to evoke a mood or feeling through spacial organization or lighting qualities, but in the end, it is the user that transforms the space with their own possessions. A building or home will never look the same between two different users. I might notice the layout of a new space, but that is quickly overshadowed by what I bring into the space, my transformations. This sense of possession takes place across all building programs: homes, offices, restaurants (reconfiguring chairs to accommodate the number of people at a table). How much of our experiences in these buildings is determined by the architecture and not the objects that occupy its space?
On the other hand, buildings are often praised or criticized for transforming the lives of its users. Pruitt-Igoe was demolished because its shape alienated it from surrounding communities while setting the scene for poverty and criminal activity. (I can't think of a building that is praised for transforming people's lives, but I'm sure there are plenty). Large warehouses devoid of windows are seen as scary, undesirable places, regardless of the activity happening within. Light, translucent facades are viewed as warm and inviting spaces, welcoming you in.
So is it a give-and-take relationship? In some ways we let architecture affect us: our moods, our sense of security and belonging. But in other ways we feel a need to personalize the architecture around us and make it our own.
On the other hand, buildings are often praised or criticized for transforming the lives of its users. Pruitt-Igoe was demolished because its shape alienated it from surrounding communities while setting the scene for poverty and criminal activity. (I can't think of a building that is praised for transforming people's lives, but I'm sure there are plenty). Large warehouses devoid of windows are seen as scary, undesirable places, regardless of the activity happening within. Light, translucent facades are viewed as warm and inviting spaces, welcoming you in.
So is it a give-and-take relationship? In some ways we let architecture affect us: our moods, our sense of security and belonging. But in other ways we feel a need to personalize the architecture around us and make it our own.
The Art of Living, Saul Steinberg
(how architecture serves as the backdrop to our daily lives)
Pruitt-Igoe (how architecture affects/is affected by the surrounding community)
Comments
Post a Comment