To those who use and bear architecture,
A quote from De Carlo's essay reads, "[Elite Architects were] never stepping out to stand on the other side: the side of the people - those use use and bear architecture."
I can't get that one word out of my head while continuing to read this article. The very idea of bearing, that architecture is, or even could be, a burden to the user. What kind of architecture is this, the kind that is burdensome? Is it unfamiliar to the user? Is it a form that is uncomfortable in aesthetic and/or tactility? What about adaptability? Is burdensome architecture immovable? Are the tables bolted to the floor? What about maintenance? How much does burdensome architecture require too much energy to be comfortable? Efficiency? Pleasantness? Inspiration?
The answer is not any one of these single questions, it lies in how they are answered. The user MUST answer these questions together with the architect. Burdensome architecture occurs when a top down developer/genius designer/master planner approach is taken.
But where is the incentive? Economics drive everything. As long as developers are able to build cheap, profitable buildings without considering the user, they will. So what is the solution to changing the system? It is naive to think that a developer can be convinced by the advocate architect to be better to their clients. "People respond to incentives" (or regulations).
Here are my quickly brainstormed solutions:
1. Solve wasteful buildings with a carbon tax.
2. Better codes.
3. Require developers to maintain their buildings for the life cycle of the building (maintenance-free solutions are suddenly in vogue).
4. Or require them to warranty their buildings.
5. Make short term land ownership illegal.
6. Make it the law that the developer must live in one of his or her (or at least their mother) crappy buildings.
I can't get that one word out of my head while continuing to read this article. The very idea of bearing, that architecture is, or even could be, a burden to the user. What kind of architecture is this, the kind that is burdensome? Is it unfamiliar to the user? Is it a form that is uncomfortable in aesthetic and/or tactility? What about adaptability? Is burdensome architecture immovable? Are the tables bolted to the floor? What about maintenance? How much does burdensome architecture require too much energy to be comfortable? Efficiency? Pleasantness? Inspiration?
The answer is not any one of these single questions, it lies in how they are answered. The user MUST answer these questions together with the architect. Burdensome architecture occurs when a top down developer/genius designer/master planner approach is taken.
But where is the incentive? Economics drive everything. As long as developers are able to build cheap, profitable buildings without considering the user, they will. So what is the solution to changing the system? It is naive to think that a developer can be convinced by the advocate architect to be better to their clients. "People respond to incentives" (or regulations).
Here are my quickly brainstormed solutions:
1. Solve wasteful buildings with a carbon tax.
2. Better codes.
3. Require developers to maintain their buildings for the life cycle of the building (maintenance-free solutions are suddenly in vogue).
4. Or require them to warranty their buildings.
5. Make short term land ownership illegal.
6. Make it the law that the developer must live in one of his or her (or at least their mother) crappy buildings.
I particularly like #6 and think this would have the most impact. Nothing's more meaningful than making the builder the user - that's personal. I think that's how we should approach design in the first place: how would I want to live? Regardless of how much money I make or what area of town I'm in.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your post and I think your quick brainstormed ideas have a lot of potential. While all developers aren't bad, it seems that the only way to stop the trend of bad building is to have more rules and regulations. I don't think that all developers, or architects for that matter, always understand the weight that lines drawn on paper and bad design can have on the lives of the residents.
ReplyDeleteI don't completely agree with your post. (Which I can't believe cuz most of the time I agree with you haha) but I don't think more regulations is the answer. I agree that some regulations should be in place so there is some sort of control but imposing more rules seems to me that that "response" may not always be taken in the right direction and developers may not want to develop in that particular place (a.k.a. some places in Charleston).
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea of incentives more than harsh regulations, maybe a combination of both. Give them something to make them think twice when trying to build a crappy building. A.k.a a tax cut when you use some sort of materials good for the environment and a tax increment on materials that are bad. But trying to impose something.. well we've repeatedly seen how that goes some times.
Here are some of my issues with your brainstorm:
1. Sounds good, seems to be working but don't over do it because people will not be happy (look at France)
2. Agree, yet, less constrained because sometimes innovation comes from the freedom to do something. Look at other places in the world where they don't have too much regulation and are able to star making better buildings.
3. This cost will go back to the client and potential user. This should be really well though out cuz they will charge it to them.
4. Some developers already do this, maybe you're right and more should.. idk if its better for them to be requiered or if they WANT to, I wonder which one would work better
5. I don't agree, so, if my parents decide to donate me land I should wait on it to sell it? or if I get it as a gift, or if I want to develop it "the right" way should I have to wait on it? If my relatives die and I inherit it and I want to sell it.. I have to wait on it? I don't think this is a good idea. Mostly if I am a developer, why would I want to hold on to land for a long period of time? And if I can, how am I going to develop? I would own long term okay... and then how to I get the money to keep investing. I feel like this would create a lot of round arounds legally that would have to be flushed out because you are not only affecting developers when you say that.
6. If you are assuming that you are going to implement all this new regulations, why are they still crappy buildings? Also, as a foreign developer that would want to come in and invest may not do so since they don't even live there. What if they have several developments going on? Which one would they choose or be told to live in? I see your point with this one. Live in it if you are making crappy so you see how crappy you are.. totally get it.. I agree more that you probably think yet.. you are forcing them to live where you want and taking their freedom away on choosing where they want to live. I think there must be a better way to do this.
Personal opinion....
^ I have to agree with Elisa's feedback. You bring up some interesting things to think about, Bert, but I do think intensives would tend to be more successful than more rules and regulations.
Delete"Burdensome architecture occurs when a top down developer/genius designer/master planner approach is taken".
ReplyDeleteThis quote is the only thing I don't agree with regarding your post. The reason being, this isn't the only way burdensome architecture is created. Just like there are good doctors, bad doctors, good lawyers, and bad lawyers, there are also bad architects. We can't always assume that a bad piece of architecture is at the fault of a developer or similar entity, because sometimes it is just a really bad architect.
This may not have been what you meant, I just wanted to input my thought on the fact that lots of bad architects exist. And I hope none of us are one of them.