"Growing" in social and non-social housing
Social housing has become a keen need within our lifetime and will continue to be so if its not address properly. As architects should be paying close attention to it. The basic principles under which we design should be even more present when we design dwellings, specially social housing. Being ethical, providing comfort, firmness and delight should always be at the core of what we do. Or at least that's how I think it should be. Dignity within our spaces is essential. One of the reasons why I loved this week's video and reading on John Habraken is that he saw himself and us a facilitators for good design as opposed to imposing a design on others. It allowed for people to plug-in their "everyday life" and have the ability to change it. The idea of being more of a partner resonates more with me than being a "hero" or "at the front line" in the "trenches" like Aravena once said. I am not a big fan of Aravena because coming from a developing country, what he proposed as an "innovating" way to do architecture and its design was nothing new to me. Like Franco said, this has been done for decades and the fact that he didn't address that to get all the credit made me lose a lot of respect for him.
On Habraken's projects we can see an architecture that is worthy of its user. He designs hand to hand with them but gives them the freedom to place their spaces as they see fit while still being that "parental" figure that he mentions in the video. Guidance is key to its success. His approach to flexibility is very clever yet without giving up any of the triads mentioned above. On the other hand, I would critique that Aravenas project in Iquique, although flexible to a certain extent, in my view it lacks on the delight part and to some extent its comfort making it detrimental not only the way people will feel within the community but its surroundings. A good example to counter this if you are thinking, "well you can't compare them because they didn't have the same budget", correct, yet if we look at the work of Tatiana Bilbao and her vivienda popular for about $8,000 dollars then I have a point. I think Tatiana's design gives the user more flexibility while still being comfortable, firm and delightful.
I think that as architects, we should not give up on some of our principles in the name of "low budgets" or "this is what they wanted". For the most part our clients need to be educated and guided to make their spaces the best we can provide without taking away from them.
On Habraken's projects we can see an architecture that is worthy of its user. He designs hand to hand with them but gives them the freedom to place their spaces as they see fit while still being that "parental" figure that he mentions in the video. Guidance is key to its success. His approach to flexibility is very clever yet without giving up any of the triads mentioned above. On the other hand, I would critique that Aravenas project in Iquique, although flexible to a certain extent, in my view it lacks on the delight part and to some extent its comfort making it detrimental not only the way people will feel within the community but its surroundings. A good example to counter this if you are thinking, "well you can't compare them because they didn't have the same budget", correct, yet if we look at the work of Tatiana Bilbao and her vivienda popular for about $8,000 dollars then I have a point. I think Tatiana's design gives the user more flexibility while still being comfortable, firm and delightful.
 |
| Molenvliet by Habraken |
 |
| Habraken |
 |
| Iquique Housing by Alejandro Aravena |
 |
| Vivienda Social by Tatiana Bilbao |
I think that as architects, we should not give up on some of our principles in the name of "low budgets" or "this is what they wanted". For the most part our clients need to be educated and guided to make their spaces the best we can provide without taking away from them.
Good point! "Make their spaces the best we can provide without taking away from them". It is hard to built some thing for people want everything. It is not the game that we design for the rich client. We need give them as much as we can.
ReplyDeleteI like how you said architects should not simply give into the mentality of "this is what they want." Being involved in the process and educating the client makes for a better environment for the future.
ReplyDelete