Style versus Concept
One of the aspects of adaptable design and user driven design is that it is not specifically tied to one aesthetic style of architecture. The recognition that these goals and ideological drivers are idea based and not driven by the end result means that architects and developers who really buy into these ideals must be willing to live with whatever the non-designcentric public may come up with, which is very hard to do sometimes. Developers who "allow" user participation by letting residents chose from three slightly different cabinets in three slightly different shades of off-white are only giving these options to say the apartment is "customizable".
I think an important thing to note though is that unlike with some architectural goals, this is a case where it is not all-or-nothing. Yes it would be great if all buildings were easily adaptable and changed with different users, but even allowing easy replacement of plumbing fixtures, or non-structural walls to allow for changes to the spatial plan are still beneficial to the current and future users.
I think an important thing to note though is that unlike with some architectural goals, this is a case where it is not all-or-nothing. Yes it would be great if all buildings were easily adaptable and changed with different users, but even allowing easy replacement of plumbing fixtures, or non-structural walls to allow for changes to the spatial plan are still beneficial to the current and future users.
"Owner Control"
(There's a basketball goal and a wind chime in a Jean Nouvel building)
"customization"
Style versus concept is an interesting topic that may allude to the overarching theme of designing for change. There is a huge difference between something being customizable and a building that allows for interchangeable programs. This is a great topic that is not brought up enough.
ReplyDeleteI find this post very intriguing when looking at the comparison of these two ideas. This reminds me of the video we watched in class with John Habraken where he said that there is a certain point when architecture stops and inhabitation begins. It is more inclusive than choosing the cabinet color, and I believe that it is up to designers to give up a little of their pride and let the user determine what the needs actually are.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some good points in this post. I still think architects have the ability to design in a way that many others may not from design school and training. However, other people hold many creative capacities as well. Just because you didn't go to architecture school doesn't mean you can't be a talented designer. Do your force style onto the public or let it be a free for all? Is there a place in between where the public can influence design decisions in a process that is still guided?
ReplyDelete