We Ain't in Alabama Anymore
I think an important thing to keep in mind when reading about Zaera's stance on the influence of an architect is the scale at which he is talking about. Zaera is working at the scale of the train station, block developments, mega-block developments and larger. At this scale you simply can not have the minute level of involvement by an architect that we were seeing with smaller critical regionalist projects like the rural studio. With the Rural Studio there was typically just the architecture students with maybe a few structural engineers checking and signing off on parts of the projects. At the scale of Zaera's work though, it is no longer just the architect. Its Architects, Interior Designers, Developers, Accountants, Mechanical Engineers, Structural Engineers, Program Consultants, Contractors, etc. each with their own specialty and slice of responsibility/liability in the project.
Critically though, I do not think that the Architect does not have any influence on other parts of the project. It is still possible, and I would say necessary, to request changes from other areas in the design process. However, in these cases, the person responsible for making the changes, adjusting the calculations, ensuring a good solution is the engineer or consultant, not the architect. This is why I think it is safe to say it is not fully in our realm of responsibility.
One area that I would argue is not quite out of our influence yet is spatial/programmatic planning. I know that market driven development can be very exact on, for example, the number of units needed to make a development profitable, and program consultants are beginning to specialize more and more in what needs to be in a project. However, the tetris game of how these different uses mesh together spatially in the early stages of the project is still typically in the control of the architect.
Critically though, I do not think that the Architect does not have any influence on other parts of the project. It is still possible, and I would say necessary, to request changes from other areas in the design process. However, in these cases, the person responsible for making the changes, adjusting the calculations, ensuring a good solution is the engineer or consultant, not the architect. This is why I think it is safe to say it is not fully in our realm of responsibility.
One area that I would argue is not quite out of our influence yet is spatial/programmatic planning. I know that market driven development can be very exact on, for example, the number of units needed to make a development profitable, and program consultants are beginning to specialize more and more in what needs to be in a project. However, the tetris game of how these different uses mesh together spatially in the early stages of the project is still typically in the control of the architect.
Norman Foster's Apple Campus
Rural Studio 20k house
This is a really good point to bring up. At the scale that Zaera is working at it's a totally different picture than what Rural studio is working on. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoy and embrace your second argument. We are trained in an understanding of the movement of people through program and experiences inside a building. Without out training, a consultant may provide the correct program to be profitable but as a functional or successful building layout, the project would have a greater chance of failure.
ReplyDelete