Architecture is too important to leave to (JUST) the architects

What I find interesting in Giancarlo De Carlo’s notion of participation architecture is the idea or fact that the building will come out differently even if it was stamped by the same architect. The idea of an architect’s style - like Richard Meier, or Frank Ghery wouldn’t necessarily work since the buildings would be informed by the people/users and their patterns. The building is a direct materialization of the community’s self-expression. Therefore the idea of Starchitects and their ‘glossy images’ wouldn’t take over the people’s social experiences. Does this mean going back to vernacular architecture? 

This type of community engagement reminds of the process that we would go through at my previous job. We would go through what we called an ‘immersion’ which is basically community engagement and participation where we would to the community where we’d be planning on building. The community wasn’t designing the building but we’d lead conversations about the community needs, what they think the solutions could be etc. Basically, the goal was to create the most impact through the inclusion of the users in the early

 stages of the design process.