The Everyday Designer
Something that has always resonated with me, that Margaret Crawford makes clear in Everyday Urbanism, is the extent that an architect or designer is integrated with "everyday life".
I think there is an "air" that architects are associated with, that they know best, better than the people in the living situation or working in the building they are designing. One line I particularly liked that Crawford quoted was,
While this might be an extreme version, by architects, I mean myself included. Its something we do in school, we're taught it, but nonetheless we do it every time we include a detail that is "cool" - is this truly helping the user? Or making a project for other architects to admire from a post on arch daily? Its something I think about a lot.
The topic "architecture for whom" presents a different way of defining "good architecture". An architecture that is not glamorous, but beautiful in the way people actually use it... and are still using it. Instead of viewing these as finished products, they are ongoing projects that the architect has handed over to the people. Maybe the way to bridge the gap is walking the streets, getting to know the neighbors. Gaining their trust. I'm not really sure the way to be the "everyday designer", but I think trying to move in that direction is enough.
I think there is an "air" that architects are associated with, that they know best, better than the people in the living situation or working in the building they are designing. One line I particularly liked that Crawford quoted was,
... since everyone is potentially an expert on everyday life, everyday life has never been of much interest to experts. Although experts and intellectuals are embedded in everyday life, they prefer to think of themselves as outside and elsewhere.Architects can seem to exist outside of the everyday, doling out changes in the same way a mayor or city council might. One of the greatest and best known examples of this is Le Corbusier's Plan Voisin.
While this might be an extreme version, by architects, I mean myself included. Its something we do in school, we're taught it, but nonetheless we do it every time we include a detail that is "cool" - is this truly helping the user? Or making a project for other architects to admire from a post on arch daily? Its something I think about a lot.
The topic "architecture for whom" presents a different way of defining "good architecture". An architecture that is not glamorous, but beautiful in the way people actually use it... and are still using it. Instead of viewing these as finished products, they are ongoing projects that the architect has handed over to the people. Maybe the way to bridge the gap is walking the streets, getting to know the neighbors. Gaining their trust. I'm not really sure the way to be the "everyday designer", but I think trying to move in that direction is enough.
Sort of like this?
Regarding one role of architects, I have been thinking about the following over the last week:
ReplyDeleteOnline, an image search for "nature reclaiming abandoned places" leads to photos of nature, left unchecked, reasserting itself over man-made objects. Grass growing through sidewalk cracks or cows wearing paths across pastures have something in common with human responses to formal rules and structures. I suspect the tendency to make our own mark (i.e., tactics) rests in our DNA.
The struggle between strategy and tactic; however, presents an opportunity for urban architects to serve as moderators. By influencing aesthetics, function, social interaction, safety, and quality, architects separate parts of the natural world from everyday life. On the other hand, architects can facilitate interactions between the built environment and the natural world, making allowances for human animals to reclaim parts of the built environment.