Just Build it
In the Ted Talk, Alejandro Aravena concludes by restating his recent concepts of self construction, common sense, and nature as a threefold to accomplishing successful participatory design. These concepts are so clear and well implemented in his presented designs, but I wonder how often we successfully consider these concepts? It is instilled in our heads throughout school and discussion of architecture, but in the end do we actually drive our designs on these concepts or the importance of money and policy. It seems that we have the best intentions when we are designing and we can develop intriguing solutions, but this becomes convoluted through codes that have to be followed, economic value and in the end, the client calling shots.
I would argue that the most important part of design is the community in which we are designing for. Because the users are the ones who interact and reap the benefits or negatives that we design. This is not always consistent with the clients for which we are designing for. The developers and people with the money to help produce a project are calling our shots and they will typically resent most unconventional ideas. Where is the medium between our users and the developers? How do we prevent these cookie cutter complexes and start responding to environments and context?
It seems that an inevitable downside to these "cookie cutter" complexes is that they will continue to be built, because developers continue to see there is a need for them. As architects, we need to use our influence in the design process to show alternatives to these mass produced housing complexes. Good design can be simple, but we need to show how to do it.
ReplyDeleteA concept that interests me is the idea of outright resistance to designing these cookie-cutter complexes. Is it possible for an architect to instead refuse commissions of such projects in favor of a more open-minded client? Easily, I would assume. But what if 10% of all architects do the same? 50%?
ReplyDeleteYou frequently hear people say, 'if I don't do it, someone else will.' But does that always have to be the case? Can unified resistance lead to changes in client attitude's?