The fine line between participation and condescension
I’m very much in favor of the good intentions behind community participation and the democratization of architecture and design. I think it's obvious that the community should have a say in what is being built near their homes and businesses. It’s also obvious that community feedback should be used to influence design decisions. I want to make it very clear that I am not anti-democracy and believe that architecture should be by the people and for the people, and I should say this before I go on to say that this same rhetoric can also be used to mislead and take advantage of people.
The skeptical side of me has suspicions of how “participation” is often implemented in practice. Community feedback can be very easily misinterpreted or even manipulated to where designers, architects, and developers can fool people or even themselves into thinking they are doing what's best for the community. At its worst it can become a way for architects and developers to justify their work on some perceived moral grounds, that by reaching out for community input and involvement they can say “I’m not doing this for me, I’m doing it for the good of the community”. It can be a ploy for the elite to pat each other on the back and pat the people they’re “helping” on the head. A type of architecture that says, “Let them eat cake” and “We are going to help you, whether you like it or not”.
I have doubts as to what extent people really have any say in the design process, and to what extent the people who are surveyed are representative of the community as a whole. When architects cite community participation as a factor in their design, it shouldn’t just be blindly accepted as a positive. We still need to consider the specifics and circumstances behind that participation. Otherwise they are just hollow and meaningless buzz-words thrown out as a form of money-laundering a project into some form of bogus humanitarian venture.
The skeptical side of me has suspicions of how “participation” is often implemented in practice. Community feedback can be very easily misinterpreted or even manipulated to where designers, architects, and developers can fool people or even themselves into thinking they are doing what's best for the community. At its worst it can become a way for architects and developers to justify their work on some perceived moral grounds, that by reaching out for community input and involvement they can say “I’m not doing this for me, I’m doing it for the good of the community”. It can be a ploy for the elite to pat each other on the back and pat the people they’re “helping” on the head. A type of architecture that says, “Let them eat cake” and “We are going to help you, whether you like it or not”.
I have doubts as to what extent people really have any say in the design process, and to what extent the people who are surveyed are representative of the community as a whole. When architects cite community participation as a factor in their design, it shouldn’t just be blindly accepted as a positive. We still need to consider the specifics and circumstances behind that participation. Otherwise they are just hollow and meaningless buzz-words thrown out as a form of money-laundering a project into some form of bogus humanitarian venture.
I share your skepticism of "participatory" design. It can be hard to tell whether or not its authentic, and I have to wonder if its necessary in all instances. One could argue that NYMBY-ism a form of "community participation," thinking back to the New Roads project Jori explained in her lecture today.
ReplyDeleteI also worry that words like "community" and "engagement" and the like have become so overused in architecture speak that they've lost their meaning. It seems like we're trying to portray our work as much more social justice-oriented and philanthropic than it really is.
I agree with both of you and your skepticism on the validity of participatory design. Who knows when an architect is just scheming and doing it for the buzz-word? However, I think when an architect does use participatory design in a well-meaning manner, it can do wonders for the project. Our job is to listen to the client/user and assess what he/she is saying. What they say they want might not necessarily be what they need. And if we can design for and serve their needs with the project, then participatory design becomes a real asset in the design process.
ReplyDeleteI think there is an important component in this process that is subjective. Architects must evaluate feedback from a community. Peoples roles should be clearly defined, even in a setting of inclusivity.
ReplyDeleteI think this has to do with how participatory design is a relatively new idea. During the 19th and 20th centuries we as a country were largely concerned about being as industrious as possible. As we've gotten wealthier and more comfortable, there's been a focus shift toward people and communities. I feel like architects are doing the things you're describing. Sometimes they have the wrong intentions and there's this pressure to "include the community". We as a profession are still working on what that means and I think we need to continue improving for sure.
ReplyDelete