A Human Disconnect

In Tuesdays lecture the idea of Architecture for whom was asked? To this point that question has not been asked it has been more about Architecture as what? When I think about architecture my first thought is about the intended user group and the impact the building can have on them. This relationship changes based on the user groups, in some cases the project is bold and lead and in other cases it is more of a supportive tool for the users. In the end the architecture is a reflection of the users and their needs and wants. I personally struggle with the idea of architecture without context or architecture devoid of a user. To me without these things architecture is nothing more than an object to be observed and lacks the ability to have any real impact. This is an issue I have with Koolhaas. Though he observes the world around him to inform his theory and architecture there is still a disconnect. He is not on the same level of disconnect as Eisenman but there still is a sense of Architecture is what is important. In the work of Van Eyck though we start to see a more intimate level of understanding and appreciation for the human experience. Where Koolhaas wants to force interactions and create odd programmatic mixing Van Eyck looks more at the interplay that naturally occurs between user groups and the needs of each. To me this creates a much richer architecture. It might not be as striking or as appealing when searching through ArchDaily but there is a level of richness and devotion to the user that is not seen in the works previously studied.