Everything DOES NOT Need to be Special
From the text it is taken, " Most obviously, there is the simple fact that the entire built environment is to be architecture and that architecture is special and different. How can everything be special?"
John Habkaken takes the stance that architecture in today's day and age makes everything "special" and he disagrees that every building needs to be "special". I find this stance particularly interesting because I have never thought about our industry in this light - but it makes perfect sense. He describes how architecture of the past was to create temples, cathedrals, villas, etc. because these buildings were "special" and desired design. But there was a shift in the conversation that led to everything needing to be "designed". He states this is a consequence of architects taking on the role to design the built environment as a whole.
I find the Top Down approach that he describes quite interesting, but in relation to the control architects seek to have today. We as architects want to design the perfect environment that someone will love (but will they really?) This must mean we need to design the fabric of the city, to the city block, to the house and the neighboring house, to the interior, to the furniture and the cups/plates, and leaves on the trees... Is this really what we do?! In my not so humble opinion, this is TOO FAR!
The text sums up perfectly what we need to consider as designers - The Distributed Way to practice. Not everything fits under the umbrella of architecture, and by taking on too much, life become prescriptive and users feel that the professionals must "know best" and there is no place for their opinion in the place they will inhabit for their lifetime.
John Habkaken takes the stance that architecture in today's day and age makes everything "special" and he disagrees that every building needs to be "special". I find this stance particularly interesting because I have never thought about our industry in this light - but it makes perfect sense. He describes how architecture of the past was to create temples, cathedrals, villas, etc. because these buildings were "special" and desired design. But there was a shift in the conversation that led to everything needing to be "designed". He states this is a consequence of architects taking on the role to design the built environment as a whole.
I find the Top Down approach that he describes quite interesting, but in relation to the control architects seek to have today. We as architects want to design the perfect environment that someone will love (but will they really?) This must mean we need to design the fabric of the city, to the city block, to the house and the neighboring house, to the interior, to the furniture and the cups/plates, and leaves on the trees... Is this really what we do?! In my not so humble opinion, this is TOO FAR!
The text sums up perfectly what we need to consider as designers - The Distributed Way to practice. Not everything fits under the umbrella of architecture, and by taking on too much, life become prescriptive and users feel that the professionals must "know best" and there is no place for their opinion in the place they will inhabit for their lifetime.
I do think that to some extent architects still have that mentality of making every building special. The "Design" aspect sometimes takes priority over the function and I think that is ashame.
ReplyDelete