Everyday That Will Not Go Away

In his exposition, “Questions That Will Not Go Away,” Habraken said that in the past everyday environment was not considered architecture, and yet it coexisted with architecture everyday and was beautiful and intriguing. And I think that the everyday is still beautiful and intriguing in 2019.

Habraken characterizes gracefully why the everyday is so beautiful and even successful as architecture when he says, “sharing of qualities in a same locality is what makes a good environment.” I think of Venice, Amsterdam, Santorini, and Cinque Terre, remarkable because of the shared values and character that were not defined and articulated by architects, but rather by the community of users in the place. In each of these cities, there is a unique balance of individuality and unity, which is most strongly revealed in the everyday, ordinary ‘non-architecture’.

So now I consider the question discussed almost two weeks ago. What is meant when we say participation in architecture? Is it the participation of the Architect in the built environment, or is it the participation of people in the Architect’s work? I argue that it has to be the former. A good architect should have the ability to recognize a sense of place—shared qualities in a same locality—and design in a culturally and contextually sensitive way so as to enhance an existing everyday environment.